- Thursday, 8 January 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS Feed
We're seeing a sort of Wal-Martisation of this world - Pundit on BBC Radio 4
British privacy group aims to roadblock Google's Street View
GOOGLE IS SET to start photographing areas in the UK for its Street View tool this week, but British rights groups are already up in arms about it and are threatening to call on the Information Commissioner to take action against it.
Google’s Street View tool, which has mapped over 30 US cities to date and now plans to map Europe, allows users to see streets from ground-level, with 360-degree panoramas, letting them virtually drive down a given street.
But the new mapping service has already given itself a bad name in the US, after people caught in Google’s photographers’ lenses showed up on the Internet without being warned. Some were simply passing by, whilst others were unfortunate enough to be caught having a pee by the side of the road, sunbathing topless, being arrested, or even emerging from strip clubs.
Britain’s Privacy International is not impressed with Street View’s record thus far and says it reckons the technology breaks data protection laws.
Simon Davis, a spokesman for the privacy outfit said "In our view they need a person's consent if they make use of a person's face for commercial ends".
Google replied by stating it removed people’s photos from scenes upon request, and that it is now currently testing out a new face blurring technology developed using an algorithm that detects human faces in photographs.
Privacy International isn’t buying it though. The organisation says that Google has often made fanciful promises concerning privacy in the past and has so far been want to deliver.
One example is a pledge by the firm to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during the Doubleclick acquisition, that "crumbling cookies" would be developed. This never panned out. Another was a Google promise to release a " privacy dashboard" to help consumers understand the functionality of their user settings. This too is yet to materialise.
The search engine Behemoth also seems to be giving Privacy International the brush off, which the group find incredibly insulting. "We've spoken to Google in the past about this and received a snide response telling us to look more closely at their blogs", said Davis.
Angrily Davis concluded, "Google likes to think of itself as a global player. In reality it is acting like an irresponsible adolescent". Oo-er…sounds like Privacy International intends to get Google Earth’s street view grounded. µ
L’Inq
BBC
Share this:
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
... Google doesn't hire a gaggle of people to blot out people's faces from the pictures taken by Street View. Yes there are a lot of pictures, but I'm sure they could redact people's faces from say, the greater Chicagoland area (8k square miles) inside a week with a meager team of a dozen young whippersnappers. Or better yet, maybe these privacy outfits could volunteer their time and do the grunt labor for Google at a reduced, minimum-wage level? That would have to be a win-win.... Otherwise it's just going to be two bitter twits screaming at each other in court and only the lawyers profit from that.
Just for the information , I saw google's car roaming street of north london already two weeks ago , but perhaps those were only test shots ? Will find out soon if I find my face on their site
This is just a small pressure group maybe even just one man, trying to make a name for themselves. There is NO law against filming anyone in a public place in the UK.
One caught me the other day in Greenwich Park. I gave it a cheeky wave. I don't care. If your caught being arrested or acting in a way that you don't want people to see you act. DON'T FRICKING DO IT. I was there. I saw everyone else that was caught on the camera. What is the difference?
So how do all the seaside postcard makers stand? Any photo of any scene could have people in it - indeed it would have if its at all interesting. How about news photographs or film reports on TV? All will have people in who won't have given consent. The implications of this are endless.
This is like trying to stop somebody from shooting you with a squirt gun while you're standing in a rainstorm.
On one end the government's ordering them to invade people's privacy. On the other side of the "pond," they're being ordered to respect people's privacy. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
These are just a number of ways, we in the UK are kept in check: 4.2m CCTV cameras 300 CCTV appearances a day Reg plate recognition cameras Shop RFID tags Mobile phone triangulation Store loyalty cards Credit card transactions London Oyster cards Satellites Electoral roll NHS patient records Personal video recorders Phone-tapping Hidden cameras/bugs Worker call monitoring Worker clocking-in Mobile phone cameras Internet cookies Keystroke programmes So with that said, why should we care if Google captures us for Google Street View, I haven't a care in the world anymore.
Same as panorama software, merge multiple images, taken at different times, of the same stuff, and use that to remove all "persons", and most cars, from the images. Why would this be a problem?
Wowsers always object to cool, new technologies that are disruptive in a postive way. Google has reduced the resolution for images around our Boston house and those from above (compared to Microsoft's) besides blurring the (clothed) people chatting on the porch. We're seeking a flatmate now and I give the Street View link to save time and gas vs. a look see of the house and neighborhood. Political process takes a good idea, dilutes to appease everyone, and ends up satisfying no one. I liken it to pr0n reduced for a mobile.
I saw one of their cars roaming around north glasgow earlier this week so seems like they're already clocking a few cities already.
Britain’s Privacy International? Who? They've made a pretty good job of keeping their own existence private, until now. Google have said they'll adjust images as appropriate to local laws and customs, so what's the big deal?
The UK may have a lot of CCTV, Cameras, etc, but they tend to be in trouble spots, or town centres. You'll also find warnings everywhere of CCTV Cameras in use. Im not sure i want people being able to take a virtual tour of my garden from anywhere in the world. At least i have a choice to avoid most types of monitoring, because i get warned about it. This gives me no warning or say so at all.
I'd be very surprised if Google Street View appeared in Germany. Why? German law automatically makes any picture with your mug in it, your property. You have the veto on it being published (even in a group shot), and there are extreme penalties for breaking this law. That's why we don't have celebrity news in Germany. The images would automatically be owned by the celebs the moment they were snapped, and they're not going to give permission to publish without a big fat fee, are they? :)
So how is this different from all the live TV news reports from the high street, or coverage of crowds outside sports grounds, or any outside picture shown in a newspaper? All of these sources contain people without their consent. If google can't do it then all the other media should stop as well. Or does privacy just matter when it is Google that is involved?
I dare them to drive them around Bristol, they will probably get stolen before taking a single snap...