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."

Comments

Screw the EU's privacy concerns

[yttrstein]

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.

Re:Screw the EU's privacy concerns

[Haxamanish]

The EU has been around since 1973?

1951: European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
1957: European Economic Community (EEC)
1967: European Community (EC)
1973: UK, Ireland & Denmark join EC
1993: European Union (EU)

Re:Screw the EU's privacy concerns

[Nuskrad]

Retaining the DNA of innocent people and using stop and search powers without reasonable suspicion are two areas that come to mind, the UK government has been successfully prosecuted in the ECHR but has yet to comply with the rulings

Re:Screw the EU's privacy concerns

[TheLink]

I'm guessing it's because the UK has lots of cameras especially in cities. London has thousands of CCTVs.

But of course that's different because the public don't get to see those camera recordings.

And they go conveniently blank/missing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Missing_CCTV_footage

Photos in public

[JoshuaZ]

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?

Re:Photos in public

[twidarkling]

"Officer, I was clearly standing on the street with my camera. It's not my fault that the girl was naked in her bedroom. She shouldn't have left the curtains open."

There's Peeping Tom laws in many places, for one thing, and there's lots of instances of individual efforts being acceptable where organized efforts are held to be unacceptable. For instance, refreshing on a site. One person does it, they're checking for new content. Many people do it, it's a DDoS.

Re:Photos in public

[sopssa]

However, remember that the Google van has the camera a lot higher than what you could see walking on the street. For example there has been many cases where the camera has photographed inside peoples apartment or over garden walls, even people without clothes. If you went taking photos of someones backyard that is otherwise shield, you would be violating law. Same thing if you went taking pictures of someone through his/her window. Google is doing exactly this, on a mass scale, and then putting them on the internet for everyone to see.

Re:Photos in public

[IndustrialComplex]

Higher than a double decker bus?

Re:Photos in public

[ashitaka]

This is why a huge portion of Tokyo including the street where I used to live is no longer covered by Streetview. The wall outside our landlord neighbour's house is about 2m high. I couldn't see over it when walking by it but the Google pics when they were up it was easy to see into their living room. Most Japanese urban houses are less than 2 meters from the road. In these cases you are able to see what someone walking would not, hence the application of laws related to unnatural viewpoints.

Re:Photos in public

[mcgrew]

They're not really that high. The earliest streetview vehicle was a van, but they're using sedans now (photos at the link). The camera is no higher than the head of a driver of an SUV, perhaps not even as high.

If someone in a Hummer can see you naked it's your own fault.

Re:Photos in public

[Dwarfgoat]

Ah, yes, that was quite the media brouhaha around these parts last fall. Despite the fact that it later turned out the woman who filed the complaint had been trespassing, cutting through his yard (resulting in her being in a place a normal person would not have been able to see in his kitchen window) he was convicted of indecent exposure a few months later. The judge waived any jail time, saying that he didn't put people in jail for being stupid [referring to the defendant not closing the curtains] or (and I quote) "We'd all be in jail." Despite not getting jail time, the case is being appealed "on principle" according to the man's lawyer.

Of course, in VA, indecent exposure will land you on the sex offender registry, too.

Re:Police is investigating it too

[megamerican]

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."

Re:improvements in Google's blurring technology

[sopssa]

Technical incapability isn't an excuse to break laws.

Do a second pass!

[Extremus]

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.

Re:Do a second pass!

[Angst Badger]

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.

That would be harder than you think. The position of the camera could vary by several feet. If it's a windy day, you have foliage moving around. If the passes are not widely separated in time, many people would be in the same location -- cafe diners and sunbathers come to mind. If the passes are widely separated in time, then you have differences in the angle of the sun and changes in weather to take into account. It's much more difficult than taking a few pictures from a tripod over a couple of minutes and editing out pedestrians and cars.

On the other hand

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:On the other hand

[paimin]

Blame the leaders if that makes you feel better, but we're the ones that give it up, like a $5 whore.

Really?

[koan]

Privacy "watch dogs" in the UK are concerned, but the 300 CCTV cameras per block aren't a problem?

Re:Oh for fsck sake!

[twidarkling]

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.

Re:Police is investigating it too

[sopssa]

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.

Re:how is the public private?

[Necron69]

"If you told me that you were going to post them to make money and asserted your right to stand there taking pictures of my house, I would probably call the cops."

And in the US anyway, the cops would tell you that this is perfectly legal and to stop filing bogus complaints (or they SHOULD).

Necron69

Re:how is the public private?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You may feel that way but your feelings don't give you or anyone else the right to violate the rights of others to take pictures in a public place. I am a photographer and I bristle at the suggestion you have that right. Only because a lot of cops and people post 9/11 think that for some reason they do have the right to stop someone taking photographs in a public place. And they do not. Google has a right to do this taking photographs in a public place is legal the EU as usual is harping on companies out of bounds.

I can't believe the hipocracy what with the thousands of surveillance cameras in EU member state Great Britain. There are actually people watching those specifically to violate the privacy of UK citizens where's the outrage there?

Re:Police is investigating it too

[element-o.p.]

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.

Re:Police is investigating it too

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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."

Re:Police is investigating it too

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Oh for fsck sake!

[Hatta]

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.

Re:how is the public private?

[93 Escort Wagon]

And in the US anyway, the cops would tell you that this is perfectly legal and to stop filing bogus complaints (or they SHOULD).

Unfortunately it's been demonstrated that a lot of police aren't aware of this - hence the post-9/11 arrests of photographers taking photographs of railroad trellises, etc.

The cases have all eventually been dismissed, but it ends up costing these people several days out of their lives just to prove they were doing something completely legal.

Re:Police is investigating it too

[CraftyJack]

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."

Next week...

[kiddygrinder]

Google threatens to pull out of EU