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.'"
Well, maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it said GOOGLE STREET VIEW PICTURE CAM-VAN and wasn't secretive about doing it, it would upset me that much.
Well, a friend of mine seen the van when it was doing San Francisco and mentioned it to me back then, and while he did not know about "street-view" name(product was not launched yet at the time), he said it was clear enough that it was Google van and that it was taking pictures of street with cameras. Come to think of it, I think there was even a /. article about it. Does not sound all that secretive.
-Em
Re: (Score:2)
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:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they stick very closely to the law. Any CCTV installation must have clear contact details for the operator, and they are only allowed to film public spaces. They may not under any circumstances be pointed through people's windows, for example.
Yes, this has been successfully prosecuted in UK law.
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:2)
It's illegal to hire people and not pay them a decent salary.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I live in one of the UK's largest cities, and I pass about five or six CCTV cameras in as many miles on my way to work. That's in some of the busiest parts of the city centre, too.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, Google has a checkout system. They could offer this credit to users as a gift certificate--which would incr
you mean (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can see, Google Maps is a free information service. While the parent company does indeed make profit from advertising, that advertising can be deleted or ignored. Said advertising is not even on the same page, just a text link to access the advertising (on a separate page), if you wish to.
Simply providing pictures on the internet, that may or may not have people in incriminating or embarrassing information in them, is not the sa
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)
Re: (Score:2)
http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/src/1123783702627.png [c3.cx]
Please God, No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
B.
Re: (Score:2)
Paragraph 1 shall not apply where:
(c) processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another person where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving his consent; or
(e) the processing relates to data which are manifestly made public by the data subject or is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
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)
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)
Wanted to get caught... (Score:2, Funny)
What was he doing in front of cameras while trying to co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 earli
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)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of Hospitals, doctor office, and clinics were just throwing out medical records, and the patient confidentiality wasn't really thought about outside the most obvious situations.
Since this happens outside the patient expected base of knowledge, it didn't giv the market very many opportunities to respond. The times it could respond were always after the fact. So really to late t
I don't mind the law. (Score:2)
I was also pointing out how ironical it might be to apparently also swear the front end to secrecy when we know how people blab their maladies anyway.
My work here is done. The next 30 messages will dispute the usage of "ironical".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong !
"Everyone" is a very very large number of people. And I'm not being pedantic - If you are walking down the street, a limited number of people can see you, ie. those walking the same part of the same street.
If your photo gets posted to the internet, then anybody can see you, not restricted to those in the immediate vicinity. There is a slight difference of scale there.
Would you like to see your face plastered on every billboard in every town in ev
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying there should be no restrictions, but I'm not sure we're there yet.
Google Street View is a snapshot. It's updated once in a blue moon. If anyone can track me from it, I'd be astonished.
It produces data, not information.
Your appearance in criminal court (or any other court) is a matter of public record, already free and unrestricted on the internet.
These objections would apply to all the passers-by in YouTube videos, and there's no hue and cry about that. Everyo
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yea man, what do you want us to do? wear a "robots.txt" around our necks?
No newspapers in France? (Score:2)
No, but publication of your image without consent is, for example, forbidden in France.
Do newspapers in France get permission from all the recognizible people in the crowd when they publish a picture of someone else? Do they have permission from President Bush to publish his photo? Do the people in the crowd at a sports event sign waivers when it is televised?
It is not a matter of what is sensitive or not, it is a matter of respect of the person, that has a right to choose whether they want to be seen by possible millions on a google picture or not.
It is a matter of "what is sensitive or not" as that is what the inroductory paragraph to this story claims makes the difference between requiring explicit consent or simple notification. And it strongly implies that Google will need e
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
They would do faces if it was the easiest way to comply with laws that limit publishing pictures of random people on the street. The motivations aren't hard to
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yeah, but Google streets lets you look at a SPECIFIC LOCATION. What if I sat outside some freakish porn shop and wrote down the license plates of everybody who parked out front? Do people have a right not to have some person publish the fact that they stopped at "Whips and Grips R Us?" Maybe not, b
Re: (Score:2)
A licence plates *entire* purpose is to prominently display the registration information (the fact that a car has a licence).
This is not only not "secret" or "personal" information, it's the exact opposite.
Information specifically made to be displayed at all times and acessible to all.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if you beat the shit out of the person trying to destroy your personal property? It sounds like "unwritten law" actually means "might makes right." It just means th
Hidden add for /. (Score:2)
Can somebody explain me what the author is referring to? Looks more like an hidden add for
Re: (Score:2)
Precede it with a warning vehicle? (Score:2)
Re: (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)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately... (was:Use Long Exposure Times) (Score:2)
The Google van is a vehicle and often takes pictures while moving. Slow shutter is not an option.
HAL.
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Not serious. The identifiable persons could ask you to take it down, and perhaps ask for reparation. Of course if you are a company using these pictures for a commercial product, then it is far more serious and real legal trouble could arise.
Say you are photographed by google with a finger up your nose, unaware of what's going on. Would you be comfortable with a company using that picture of you, publishing it on a very popular web service, so that anyone in the world can without any mistake identify you
Re: (Score:2)
The person would most likely already have that reputation, seeing as he is walking around in public with his finger up his nose.
The solution to this problem will probably be to only take pictures when there aren
Re: (Score:2)
Not unless most outdoor photographs are now taken by commercial organisations with the explicit intent of cataloguing and republishing them complete with search facilities.
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.
what if it isn't identifiable? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only people (Score:2)
That's not what the law says (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, obviously, but I'm the editor of a UK magazine which regularly prints pictures which happen to include people - without getting their consent.
What TFA failed to mention is that journalism is granted an exception in the legislation.
HAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks (Score:2)
Simpler method (Score:2)
Another way of doing it is taking multiple identical pictures at different times and then sampling the people and other things that have moved, out of the picture by combining all the pictures and t
Removing people (Score:2)
Actually, it would be better if Google could remove all moving objects from their images. Often, StreetView images of storefronts are blocked by traffic. I've seen a section where most of a block consists of a side view of a UPS van.
This is quite feasible. I went to a talk by some of the CGI guys who did "Tokyo Drift", and they described how they got good background pictures of a major intersection in downtown Tokyo. They sent someone there with instructions to take a large number of pictures of the i
Re: (Score:2)
Merging together different pictures would also be very complex and errorprone, not "simple". What about different lighting conditions and slightly different van positions/angles? Far easier to just select the pictures with nothing in them by hand.
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?)
Technical Solution (Score:2)
More honoured in the breach than the observance... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)