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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
"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
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?
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.
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!
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.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
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."