Slashdot Mirror
EU Says Google Street View Violates Privacy
upto0013 notes the latest spot of trouble for Google in Europe: the EU says that Google's Street View images violate privacy laws. The EU's privacy watchdog asked Google to notify cities and towns before photographing (Google says it does this already) and to delete original photos after 6 months (Google keeps them for a year and says it has reason to do so). "[T]he privacy official] said that the company should revise its 'disproportionate' policy of keeping the original unblurred images for up to a year, saying improvements in Google's blurring technology and better public awareness would lead to fewer complaints — and a shorter delay for people to react to the photos they see on the site. Complaints about the images put online would usually be checked against the original photos."
You know, the EU has a lot of nerve coming down on google for "privacy violations"; the same body who seems to have exactly no problem at all with Britain's blatant and constant violations, and they've actually been a MEMBER of the EU since 1973.
All politics, no substance, this. Moot, meaningless, next.
I really don't see the philosophical or policy basis for seeing this as something which privacy laws should prohibit. What is visible in public should be photographable to the public. If I can see it with my eyes without violating a law, why shouldn't I be able to photograph it? And if I can do it for individual photos why shouldn't Google be able to do it systematically?
It's not like they are photographing the insides of peoples houses. They are photographing the streets and outsides of peoples houses. So unless they are hopping over walls of gated communities we are talking public spaces here. I must be missing something here, cause I don't get it! I can understand inside your house is your place, but outside your house is public space. Well unless they have to drive up a private driveway to get pictures of the driveway and if that is the case, it should be marked private property.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Future quote from Eric Schmidt, Google CEO:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to see, maybe you shouldn't have it in the first place."
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Technical incapability isn't an excuse to break laws.
They could do two passes on places and use the double collected data in order remove people and other movable things. I think this is and practically theoretically feasible.
What a difference it is to hear about a government (or quasi-government) fight for the privacy rights of citizens.
Here in the Land of the Free, we've just about given up that right. Thanks Osama, you motherfucker. You too, Bush.
Privacy "watch dogs" in the UK are concerned, but the 300 CCTV cameras per block aren't a problem?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"Ok, my fellow senators, we're done sucking the cooperate tit of Microsoft for now. Who else do you know that rakes in over 6 billion greenies a year ? Hit them with a government bailout, boys !"
Please try to come up with something more important than this! This absolutely rediculous because publishing a photo in a newspaper could also be an infringement of privacy!
Except that it's consistently been held that for purposes of reporting something in the public interest is greater than an individual's privacy, and they *still* need to do due diligence in getting photographic releases for certain things. There's no news value in Google's Street View, and it's more pervasive. It's not a single picture, it's multiple pictures, angles, and setting.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Are you kidding me?! If you are sitting out somewhere where john Q public can walk by and see you in the buff, how much could you possibly really care about your privacy? Hey, if you don't want people to know that you sit naked on your porch, stop doing it! They can see you!
I love it when the government writes a law forcing someone else to do something, then the government officials who drafted the law take credit for it. Hilarious! As if those idiots ever did anything other than sit around and talk!
If I remember correctly, that case involved Google's van photographing him over his garden wall, so no, he wasn't clearly visible to anyone just walking by. If you climbed up the garden wall and photographed people without clothes in their private property, you would be breaking law too. Even without even putting them on the Internet for everyone to see.
What impossible thing is mandated here? EU is just saying Google needs to fix their blurring technology as it violates privacy laws or stop doing what they're doing. If it's not technically possible for Google to automatically blur faces, then they need to hire people to do manual blurring or forget the whole thing in EU area.
Well ...
Married Google chief executive Eric Schmidt has forced his mistress to
remove her personal blog from the web, according to reports. The
54-year-old CEO has been linked to other women in the past and he is
believed to be either separated or in an open relationship with his
wife Wendy.
That's pretty much irrelevant. As has been said on /. often enough, once it's posted on the Internet, it's essentially impossible to remove it later*.
*Unless what is posted is the only surviving copy of some piece of data that is critically important to you (your masters thesis, the open source project that was going to make you more famous than Linus, photographic evidence that bigfoot and/or the Roswell aliens actually exist, etc.). Then no matter how hard you look, it won't be cached anywhere.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Future quote from A Lawyer, EU Chief Privacy Officer:
"No-one is perfect. In the real world, people occasionally make mistakes, and reveal things publicly that they did not expect or intend to share with the world. As you demonstrate no willingness to take this into account, we are imposing draconian laws that basically kill your business model. If your business model dies because many people will find it offensive, maybe you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place."
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That wooshing noise was the point flying over your head. The burden for preventing such a clear and abusive invasion of privacy should not lie with the potential abusee, and a system where people (or corporations) can invade your privacy and then share the results with the world unless you actively opt out does not scale.
I prefer the approach taken by Japan, where this over-the-wall problem was common given typical Japanese architecture and infringements were widespread, and Google was forced to throw away the lot.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It would be a little more reasonable to say that "If you have something you don't want anyone to see, don't display it in a public area."
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Except that it's consistently been held that for purposes of reporting something in the public interest is greater than an individual's privacy, and they *still* need to do due diligence in getting photographic releases for certain things. There's no news value in Google's Street View
But there is public interest in having Street View. With street view I can check out actual pictures of the intersections and buildings near my destination, and it's that much easier to find my way around. There are really no privacy implications because you're in public anyway.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I see, did they ask the Google to take down the photos and Google refused to comply or something?
"Officer, any time I'm speeding, you just let me know and I'll stop doing it, OK? I'm happy to comply."
That's a ridiculously extreme argument. Apply it to every company not just Google and you'll see that doing business is impossible.
It's ridiculously extreme to expect a business to follow the law?
Or to understand that what someone is doing in the grounds of their own home, hidden from normal view by a high wall, should be considered private?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
People in this thread keep referring to "the Google Van." Around these parts, all the Google vehicles that have been spotted have been hybrid sedans (usually a Toyota Prius). The one I've seen in person (also a Prius), the camera mast was 6 to 7 feet off the ground. As a 6'5" individual, that's kinda of my vantage point anyway. I'm glad I didn't walk past that guy's garden wall!
That? That was a pigeon.
"But sir, my business is based on killing for hire, how can I comply with all these anti-murder laws? They must be revoked!"
Dilbert RSS feed
The UK government can store my data, within a lot of areas they track me constantly with CCTV, they want to look at my genitals when I fly and then there's Echelon. Quite frankly Google Street View is the least of my concerns.
Street View could potentially remove the need to *visit* a location before robbing it
You could make the exact same argument against maps. Publishing a map could potentially remove the need to find your way to a location before robbing it.
especially with that page from a few days ago, "Please Rob Me" that links people's twitters and such to location-specific, showing when they're away from home. So yes, it's still privacy infringement.
It's not privacy infringement if you choose to tell the world when you're away from home.
I want a release form saying that it's okay to use images of MY property for THEIR gain.
Sorry, that's public light reflecting off your house and it's being captured from a public location. You have no right to tell anyone what to do with it. If you want that much privacy, build a wall.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Google threatens to pull out of EU
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
If you are in view of the public there should never be any expectation of privacy.
Really? So you'd have no problem with someone following you around everywhere, looking over your shoulder and broadcasting any credit card numbers they could see even momentarily?
Sitting outside your home and carefully recording when everyone comes and goes, to build up a database of when the home is likely to be undefended^Wunoccupied?
Or maybe hanging around outside a school, working out which of the little girls walks home on her own?
Climbing up a ladder outside someone's window, when their curtains are closed, and looking through the slight gap where the fabric doesn't overlap at the top?
Concealing a video camera in a bag, and carrying it low enough to film up skirts?
Using official CCTV cameras mounted in public areas to look through second floor apartment windows?
The world isn't nearly as black and white as you make out, and any useful notion of privacy and public/private places needs to take into account the shades of grey.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Could you keep your countries definitions out of my country?
Thank you.
It is a giant ass blue van that is well labeled. And stalking/harassment are illegal.
If google made a van follow you around they'd be in shit.
Sitting outside your house for a few days is probably 100% legal unless it falls under stalking laws where you happen to be.
Hanging out by a school is also legal.
Putting a ladder against someone's house is illegal.
Upskirts are illegal and I've no idea how you would upskirt with a van unless you have a thing for giants.
CCTV cams also legal obviously...
So yeah, we cannot easily legislate privacy in the situations you listed. So it isn't illegal. So you should expect little or no privacy while in those places. Perhaps buy better blinds. You make it sound like a big deal 'omg they could know when I'm not at home'. But tbh that is happening anyways. If you are worried about someone targeting your child then they shouldn't be walking home alone. Not complicated really.
I think the general question of how to treat observations made using specialised equipment that can detect more than a human alone is a tricky one, and something that privacy laws are going to have to confront head-on as technology improves. In Streisand's case, it was a plane, but anything from a satellite looking down onto private property to a listening device that can pick up private conversations inside another building would prompt the same question, as indeed does using the Google camera van here.
If the observation is incidental and does not reveal anything sensitive (which is a subjective judgement you'd have to make on a case by case basis) then I tend to take the view of "no harm, no foul".
However, I think it is reasonable to expect anyone using equipment with the potential to invade privacy to act with due respect for others. As far as I'm concerned, that means all of:
For example, you've probably gathered that I have no sympathy for Google here, because it is obvious that mounting a camera up high enough to see over walls into people's back yards is going to upset some people and will almost inevitably capture some moments that were intended, and reasonably expected, to be private. Even if you stretch to arguing that this was the first time anyone tried anything like this and Google didn't realise what might happen, that defence doesn't stand up at all if they continue to capture more pictures in the same way after complaints about the early observations start coming in and the safeguards are known to be inadequate.
Had the Streisand case involved paps with telephoto lenses flying past, snapping photos of a party where personal friends were sunbathing in a revealing state that they would normally have expected to be private, then as far as I'm concerned it would have been fair to lock up the paps and anyone else who knowingly incited or profited from the photography for as long as any copy of the photos was found to be in circulation.
In reality, AFAIK, the Streisand incident only involved photography from a distance that neither was intended to reveal nor did in fact reveal anything personally sensitive, so "no harm, no foul" applies in that case IMHO.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Easy - that means they break the law too. Any more questions?
Insert
Streetview is a good tool, but with any mass data collection you need to strike a balance.
There is nothing wrong with watching a street, but people/cars should be blurred, and that was effectively what Google promised to do, also in Switzerland, only that they didn't do it well enough, and the retention of such material must be explained.
What I positively do NOT like about Streetview is that it offers to zoom in on windows - that really is invasive. In addition, they have the problem that they take pictures from an elevated viewpoint. I can understand why (try looking over parked cars otherwise), but people build fences for privacy, and they thus ended up with problems in privacy concious countries like Japan and Switzerland.
As a matter of fact, I remarked at the time that I didn't find it surprising the Switzerland asked questions - I found it amazing no EU regulator had done the same. Now I know why - they weren't exposed to the issues yet. Now they are, and thankfully they are asking the same questions.
I personally hope Google will pay attention, because addressing this intelligently would do much to address the privacy worries Google is creating. I don't think there is malice involved, it's more a culture clash, and IMHO it can be resolved with a bit of thinking.
Insert