Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Photog Wants to Shoot Buildings Excluded From Street View

Posted by timothy on from the irregular-shoot-'em-up dept.

crf00 writes with this report excerpted from Blogoscoped: "'Spiegel reports that German photographer and IT consultant Jens Best wants to personally take snapshots of all those (German) buildings which people asked Google Street View to remove. He then wants to add those photos to Picasa, including GPS coordinates, and in turn re-connect them with Google Maps. Jens believes that for the internet 'we must apply the same rules as we do in the real world. Our right to take panoramic snapshots, for instance, or to take photographs in public spaces, both base laws which determine that one may photograph those things that are visible from public streets and places.' Jens says that for his belief in the right of photographing in public places, as last resort he's even willing to go to jail. Spiegel says Jens already found over 200 people who want to help out in this project and look for removed locations in Google Street View, as there's no official list of such places published by Google."

10 of 327 comments (clear)

  1. Erm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This doesn't seem to be a "The man is restricting our rights", more of a "people are nicely asking for some attempt at privacy", and this asshole (Jens Best) wants to say "FUCK YOU, I'm going to go against you because I can, even though you were nice enough to ask otherwise"

    1. Re:Erm... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy involved here. So consequently there is a right involved, whether or not he's an asshole, he does have a point. Previously you could take pictures of pretty much everything in public view.

    2. Re:Erm... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So? Does it really matter? People really over-analyze things, I'm sure that other people really think that everyone is watching your Twitter feed, the thing is, its all lost in the shuffle, just because someone -can- doesn't mean that someone will. I -could- go look at people's homes in Japan, that doesn't mean I will, just like someone -could- stalk someone using Twitter, but lets face it, no one cares you aren't suddenly so important that someone will spend time looking at your house.

      Unless you are the president or a singer or actor. No one cares.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Erm... by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can still take pictures of everything in public view, and so can Google. And Google is being nice and taking down their own photos if you ask them to. Maybe they got the photo when your son had his car up on blocks. Maybe they happened to photograph you just as you were doing something embarrassing. Maybe you're being stalked, and don't want someone to recognize your car in the driveway. Maybe you're just paranoid.

      Either way, Google is being nice by taking down photographs upon request. This is not a legal requirement, or censorship, or anything like that. Raging against people who ask to have buildings excluded from a commercial map application seems... misplaced somehow.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    4. Re:Erm... by Draek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Huh. And what happens to people's desire for a complete and detailed database of public places rather than one filled with holes "just because"? what happens to the feelings of photographers everywhere that wish to excercise their hobby, their profession, without harrassment from total strangers? why is it only one side that gets to screw over the others' feelings and sentiments? and why does it have to be the one that doesn't have the law on their side?

      Ohh, that's right. Because it's the one you agree with.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    5. Re:Erm... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

      Even in public there is such a thing as privacy.

      True. But it is extremely limited.

      From the PDF:

      Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside
      their homes.

      Permissible Subjects

      Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

      accident and fire scenes
      children
      celebrities
      bridges and other infrastructure
      residential and commercial buildings
      industrial facilities and public utilities
      transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
      Superfund sites
      criminal activities
      law enforcement officers

    6. Re:Erm... by cappp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a really good point and I find myself wondering if maybe that comes to the core of my discomfort. Should all public information be so readily available that it doesn’t require even a modicum of effort to access? If you took the time to drive over to my place then sure, look to your heart’s content. Flew a thousand miles? Enjoy harassing the locals for photo opportunities. But just pulling it all up with the click of a button? That seems qualitatively different somehow.

      I guess I'm going slippery-slope on this, and perhaps not thinking rationally, but isn't there value in the idea that some information requires an investment of energy to access. I'm thinking of sex offenders for some reason - there are many good reasons for having publically accessible lists but does that mean that they should be conveniently attached to Google-maps complete with photographs and all contact information? Our laws were constructed without any comprehension of the ease of access the modern day provides nor of the reach purportedly local info has. A lot of public info was deemed public as long as that selfsame public was going to march down to the courthouse, or whatever, and invest effort in their search – that effort almost served as a defence against low level abuse. Maybe I just need to reconsider the idea in its totality – either way you’ve given me something to think about so cheers for that.

    7. Re:Erm... by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are almost as much of an arsehole as the photographer. You both have no idea why people might not want themselves on Google street view, they might be in fear of their lives from abusive spouses, be asylum seekers afraid of foreign governments tracking them down, who knows?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Re:Google by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not sure what you're inferring from the summary, or implying with your "moral high ground" comment, but he's not trying to "stick it" to Google. Google have just complied with requests to remove the photographs. I think he's going to do what they can't(or won't) do, i.e. take pictures and link them to Google maps. If the same people want to request that those photographs be taken down, presumably Google won't be able to just remove them...as they are expected to do when it's their photographs and they're trying to avoid a lawsuit/Bad PR. Even if Google does take them down, he can still find some other way to do it..

    Why Google removed them in the first place I have no idea. Photographs taken of anything from the street must surely be allowed on the grounds that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy if your building is situated on a public right of way?

  3. Freedom of the panorama by Confused · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Germany, there's the so-called freedom of the panorama, which means, that you're allowed to take pictures of the panorama in public places, which includes houses etc. However, that freedom is limited to a natural perspective, so you may take take the picture while walking down the street, but you may not use a stepladder or step on a car roof to get a higher vantage point. It's a very simple to understand and convenient rule about private space. If you don't want to be photographed in your garden, make the wall high enough that people passing-by can't see over it. If someone peeks over that wall and takes pictures, he's invading your privacy.

    So what the photographer proposes to do is probably perfectly legal. With the Google streetview cars the problem is, they take the pictures from higher up than regular eye level, thus the freedom of the panorama doesn't apply to them and they get in all kind of trouble. There's another company (can't remember which one) taking pictures of streets, but they have mounted the cameras directly on the car roof, probably to avoid the problems Google has.

    All in all, Google is in this mess in Germany because they didn't bother to check local laws and believed American rules apply everywhere.