Google Street View Could Be Unlawful In Europe 248
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.'"
Facial Recognition (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Well, maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Well, maybe... (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 registration plates and faces should be done. When they do it on such a large scale, and especially the whole thing about unmarked vans doing it makes it feel kinda creepy. If it said GOOGLE STREET VIEW PICTURE CAM-VAN and wasn't secretive about doing it, it would upset me that much.
Re:Well, maybe... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Being in public is not "sensitive personal data (Score:1, Interesting)
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 is doing has a lot of people (particularly women) understandably upset, but from what I've hear it's no more illegal here than all the satellite photos they've been posting for several years. If our laws made what Google's doing illegal, they'd also be making most outdoor photography illegal. (How do you take a picture outside without including some stranger in it?) Europeans, particularly those in Belgium and Northern Germany, may like a "What is not mandatory is illegal" mindset--the infamous attitude of the Prussians--but I'm not sure most people in the US will.
Re:A lot of people are missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re:A lot of people are missing the point (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Far more likely (and useful)... (Score:5, Interesting)
If these privacy kooks want to condemn google, they should have condemned FT first.
Automatically erase people from photos... (Score:1, 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?)
Re:Well, maybe... (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 identification by a human, or you just blur that part out. You'd obviously be able to tell where the image had been spliced together (due to different lighting, etc.) but it could work. Goodness knows google has the computing power to do it.