Google Street View Could Be Unlawful In Europe

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.'"

Well, maybe...

[AltGrendel]

...but probably not in England.

Far more likely (and useful)...

[Cutriss]

...is that they will start taking multiple sets of photographs in the same locations on each street, and then splicing or otherwise removing the people present in the photos.

This was never meant to be an exercise in snooping on people, though it has turned into an artistic representation of real life.

Google doesn't need consent

[timholman]

Google doesn't need consent from anyone. All they need to do is blur out the images of any people in a street scene, just like the TV networks do.

Why is everyone making such a fuss over this when the solution is well known and trivial to implement?

Being in public is not "sensitive personal data"

[Derling Whirvish]

You appearance on the street does not constitute "sensitive personal data" no matter where you are and what you are being photographed in front of. This is an overly alarmist article more suited for the frothing-at-the-mouth types over at Digg than here at Slashdot.

Re:Google doesn't need consent

[smittyoneeach]

This would become counter-productive.
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:Well, maybe...

[cayenne8]

"probably even they can't for commercial purposes"

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.

A lot of people are missing the point

[GauteL]

Some countries in Europe may have laws against photographing people, I don't know. But here we are talking about laws against publishing said photographs without express permission from the people being photographed. Many countries have such laws and the exception is typically if the person being photographed can be said to be a "public figure", in which case you are free to publicise pictures of them without permission, except if the pictures where obtained in a way that would be consider a violation of privacy (climbing over their garden fence to spy at them in their swimming pool).

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:Being in public is not "sensitive personal data

[robably]

You appearance on the street does not constitute "sensitive personal data"

True, but the law over here also recognizes that your appearance on the street does not constitute a consent to be photographed.

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.

Re:Well, maybe...

[owlnation]

Ok, so now that I read your reply..I get it. Survelliance for non-commercial purposes GOOD, if you try to make a buck off it BAD.

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 wrong. It is legal to take pictures of someone in any public place, and it is legal to make money off them. Consent or not. Period.

Re:Well, maybe...

[theStorminMormon]

If it said GOOGLE STREET VIEW PICTURE CAM-VAN and wasn't secretive about doing it, it would upset me that much.

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.

Re:Not blurring license plates...

[mgblst]

Brilliant. You know another place I have found unblurred licence plates. Out on the street, their are hundreds of them. Surely this is some privacy violation. Something needs to be done, think of the children.

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.

Re:Facial Recognition

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Idiot.

Re:Wanted to get caught...

[garoo]

Heh :-)

I'm wondering if this suicide-attempt-on-film stuff is quite accurate anyway, or if there's an element of urban legend in here. I'm not sure how much it really matters to the main point of the article, but the Guardian had to apologise for making this mistake [guardian.co.uk]:

In this article we repeated a series of errors relating to an incident involving a person who, we wrongly said, was shown on CCTV attempting suicide in the centre of Brentwood in Essex. We published a correction and apology relating to the earlier article on August 4 last year. In part, this is what it said: "In fact the CCTV recording showed no evidence of a suicide attempt, but it did show a man carrying a large knife ... and it showed the man being disarmed by the police. We accept that and we also accept that the CCTV recording was not sold but released - on the understanding that the individual's identity would be protected - to demonstrate how a potentially dangerous situation could be avoided." We repeat that there was no film of a suicide attempt, Brentwood council did not sell the CCTV footage of the incident, and in addition the police did not calm the person down and rush him to hospital. We repeat our apologies to Brentwood council.

This page [liberty-hu...hts.org.uk] goes into the case in some detail.