Slashdot Log In
Google Street View Could Be Unlawful In Europe
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Jun 14, 2007 08:55 AM
from the please-sign-here dept.
from the please-sign-here dept.
arallsopp writes "European data protection laws restrict the commercial use of photographs where individuals are identifiable. The law sets extra requirements for so-called sensitive personal data: it demands explicit consent, not just notification: 'If Google's multi-lens camera cars come to Europe and inadvertently find themselves taking pictures of persons leaving a church or sexual health clinic, they may just need to pull over and start picking up signatures.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Well, maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Next thing you know, they'd have to blur all the audiences at sports events, because *gasp* they might be televised ?
However, that is not to say i approve of what Google is doing, i think the basic idea is good, I think some effort to at least blur out car regi
Re:Well, maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that blurring license plates faces may be a good idea, but I can understand why Google doesn't wander around in a van that advertises "Hey! Do something crazy now and you'll be immortalized on Google!" Secrecy is not always a bad thing. Google just wants pictures of the streets as they are. If they advertise what they are doing the would get all kinds of crazies doing crazy/stupid/dangerous stuff.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well, maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it, French law specifically prohibits the publication of any image derived from a photograph taken in a public place without the consent of the person in that image, if the person is the main or only subject in that image.
If I take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, and you happen to be in the shot along with a few other people, I don't have to get your consent before publishing the photo, even if I gain commercially from doing so, and even if you could be recognized and identified by your face in the photograph.
There are no doubt some guidelines somewhere about the percentage surface area taken up by the person's face, compared to the main subject (the Eiffel tower, in my example), and you could dig up some jurisprudence on the subject.
source: http://www.scaraye.com/article.php?rub=27&sr=36&a= 270 [scaraye.com]
Since this is so important, I'll summarize from the text.
Bernard Tapie had been held in a prison called "la Santé" and was being released. A weekly magazine "France Dimanche" published on its cover a photo of Tapie's release. The photo showed a police officer getting into a car to the right of Tapie and his family.
The court decided that
there was no grounds to penalise the magazine or to compensate the office.
Contrast this with article 226-1 of the French Penal Code, which concerns publication of photographs taken in a private place.
source: http://www.cru.fr/droit-deonto/droit/protection-dr oits/personnalite.htm [www.cru.fr]
Yet another commentary on this article gives the contrasting situation of a person in a public place:
and goes on to:
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok...when I read the headline, first thing I thought of..."They have 1000's of CCTV cameras over there, watching their every move, and they're getting riled up about Google taking their picture too?"
Ok, so now that I read your reply..I get it. Suvelliance for non-commercial purposes GOOD, if you try to make a buck off it BAD.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While that, and this article, all sound very plausible there's one huge gaping hole in the logic of this...
The UK has one of the most virulent and productive paparazzi in existence. They make a fortune off of candid pictures taken without the consent of the subjects. They do this all over Europe. They have been doing this for a number of years.
Quite simply, this article is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's an interesting idea. If they're just in the way, then all Google has to do is run enough passes up and down the street. A computer could then compare the images and only use parts of the image that remain static from pass to pass. If they can't seem to find a static image for a given location (like a water fountain, animatronic sign, etc.) then you flag that for identifica
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The UK doesn't have that many more CCTV cameras than most other "developed" countries. I've just had two weeks in the Baltimore / D.C. area and I lost count of the number of CCTV cameras I saw, both in public places and on private property.
The huge figures quoted in the UK, as far as I know (and I don't have any sources to quote here, so please prove me wrong) include every kind of CCTV cameras, from those installed within banks and co
Far more likely (and useful)... (Score:5, Insightful)
This was never meant to be an exercise in snooping on people, though it has turned into an artistic representation of real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Far more likely (and useful)... (Score:5, Interesting)
If these privacy kooks want to condemn google, they should have condemned FT first.
Parent
you mean (Score:2)
Google doesn't need consent (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is everyone making such a fuss over this when the solution is well known and trivial to implement?
Re:Google doesn't need consent (Score:5, Funny)
You have a 5-digit user number, so I won't go with the standard "You must be new here," but come on - making a fuss over problems with trivial and well-known solutions is what we do here.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're hanging around taking such shots, you might be taken for someone with nefarious purpose.
Worse still, you could be tagged as Google, find yourself awash in resumes, then busted for littering, as the wind disperses those little sheets of fabrication like so much political propaganda.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Facial Recognition (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I could whip up an algo to do just that myself, I'm sure the giant heads working at google can do it too.
And if blurring is too high-tech, just do the classic black rectangle. No fuss at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Not gonna happen (Score:5, Funny)
In godless, sexually liberated Europe, I don't see that happening anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, well, see... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Modify the van (Score:3, Funny)
Hey Tony, get out of the van, this guy doesn't wanna sign the consent...
Google Pr0n (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wanted to get caught... (Score:2, Funny)
What was he doing in front of cameras while trying to co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bollocks. Wandering through the countryside in Devon and Somerset, I think I was caught on camera, oh, maybe not at all. I wonder if that's because there are no cameras there. Hell, in that part of the world, they've barely got electricity. But the cider is nice...
You mean in the cities. Since I live in Bristol, I did a little camera hunt around my neighbourhood a we
Silliness. (Score:3, Interesting)
They're already on 15 cameras a day according to recent numbers, and everyone has a cell camera.
This is like the HIPAA laws in this country.
Besides my reflux, I now have writer's cramp from filling out the HIPAA forms acknowleding that they told me they won't tell anyone what I have.
As my doctor said, what is he going to do, run out into the parking lot and start yelling "You won't believe what JP has!"
Plus, when you sit in the waiting room and anyone over 55 starts a conversation, it's all about what's wrong with them, and turns into a mass symptom and storytelling party.
Re: (Score:2)
Kaiser Wilhelm II (Score:2, Informative)
It would have been nice to be an Emperor, occassionally! I have had many a bad hair day.
Being in public is not "sensitive personal data" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Being in public is not "sensitive personal data (Score:5, Insightful)
If some people don't care whether they are photographed in public, but others do, then regardless of the law you should act considerately and ask permission before photographing someone, rather than assuming they feel the same way you do. People have no choice but to appear in public occasionally; it shouldn't be used as justification for photographing them, and the law in Europe recognizes this.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yea man, what do you want us to do? wear a "robots.txt" around our necks?
Not blurring license plates... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen the plentiful comments about simply blurring the faces, but a quick look at the San Fran streets shows me they're not bluring the license plates. I've got a crystal clear pic of one up right now. I can even clearly see that the vehicle was purchased at 'SERRAMONTE FORD', whatever that is. It also has some kind of a work-rig on top. I wonder if those are commercial plates? A quick DMV lookup should tell me, one sec... I can't quite make out the letters on the tags, but I bet Cali uses a color-code system. They're - well you get the point.
If they won't/can't do that, why then would they do faces?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there maybe a good argument against google AND Microsoft/Amazon doing this, but lets be sensible here. I am not sure that readable number plates are the biggest problem here.
A lot of people are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason for this kind of laws is that two parties freedom are directly at odds. The freedom of the photographer and publisher has to be weighed up against the freedom and privacy of the individual.
The laws surrounding surveillance cameras are in other words completely irrelevant in this discussion as we are talking about the right to publish rather than the right to monitor. The police state discussion is a different discussion altogether.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hidden add for /. (Score:2)
Can somebody explain me what the author is referring to? Looks more like an hidden add for
Precede it with a warning vehicle? (Score:2)
Not really a problem, solutions already exists (Score:3, Informative)
Of course Google will have to implement some algorithm to avoid publishing recognizable pictures of someone. But a lot of technologies are already available to solve this problem. One of the most impressive I have seen is inpainting: once you have selected the area you wish to remove from the picture it rebuilds the missing part... There is a Gimp plugin that perform this kind of operation: http://www.manucornet.net/Informatique/Gimp_Textu
Ah yes I almost forgot... it turns out that the author is now working at Google.
I am pretty sure that with all those people working there they can do something about it
Use Long Exposure Times (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe versus the US (Score:2, Interesting)
So if I'm in Paris and take a picture of Notre Dame that just happens to catch some well-known atheist leaving, and (unknowingly) post it to a blog, I'm is serious legal trouble? How absurd. I always thought Europe had way too many laws. This only confirms that impression.
What Google i
Where's the fancy image processing? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised google hasn't endeavored to capture multiple shots of locations at different times and aggregated that data to create unobstructed views along each street.
Why allow people, cars and trucks to obstruct signage? If they don't help identify the location or give you a feel for the "street view", remove them.
There's that tourist remover [snapmania.com] project that seems relevant.
Privacy shouldn't even be an issue because the people simply don't need to be in the photos.
That's not what the law says (Score:4, Interesting)
Time lapse photography (Score:3, Interesting)
If you set your shutter speed to 30 minutes its pretty rare to get any people in the image - or cars for that matter unless they are parked.
How else do you think you get pictures of busy public buildings but without any people on them (well before the days of photoshop)
Ok so time lapse is very old school and would probably take too long to get all the photos they want - but wouldn't some hybrid of time lapse and digital processing work quite well? (eg 10 stills over 60 seconds and an algorithm to create a composite using only the static parts?)