Google faces 'Street View block'

Fred Dawson

Fred Dawson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
231
Name
Fred Dawson LRPS
Edit My Images
Yes
BBC reports

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488524.stm

“Google's plans to launch a mapping tool in the UK could be referred to the Information Commissioner. Street View matches photos of locations to maps, including passers-by who were captured as the photograph was taken.
Privacy International, a UK rights group, believes the technology breaks data protection laws. “

Surely this would infringe the rights of all to take photographs of people in public places

What about media reports containing images taken in a public place with members of the public visible in the background
 
This is why all the new P&S cameras have 'Face recogntion Technology', in the future the cameras will automatically fuzz out faces to protect us ;)
 
mrgubby said:
in the future the cameras will automatically fuzz out faces to protect us ;)
Click to expand...
Mine seems to do that anyway - and it's not just the faces :thinking:
 
What data protection laws? Are Google going to publish the names and addresses of everyone in the pics or something?

These Privacy nuts need to go get a proper job methinks... If you're in a public place, or viewable from a public place, you're fair game;)
 
Sheesh, this country is going to the dogs!
 
badgerbaiter said:
oh god here we go again.. another 'this country is going to the dogs' hijack.

can we take it back on topic?
Click to expand...
Sorry if i've upset you, i'm just fed up with all this politically correct mumbo jumbo of which this is another example. :)
 
BiNg said:
Sorry if i've upset you, i'm just fed up with all this politically correct mumbo jumbo of which this is another example. :)
Click to expand...

its not upsetting its just boring.. it just seems everywhere you go some form of media is trying to wind up the great british public into some kind of frenzy, which usually ends up with people using the classic 'its political correctness gone mad'
now look who's taking it off topic :)
 
Snake Man said:
Not the first time they have been in the news this week. They also have to had over the IP address and user trends of all Youtube users.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm
Click to expand...


That was a US judgement, I'm pretty sure they're not a colony anymore;)

With regards the op's point I can't see this going anywhere, it's not realtime satellite imagery is it:thinking:, so you couldn't exactly use it for surveillance.

Believe it or not the Information Commissioner and the Surveillence Commissioner are quite sensible people who don't subscribe to the politcally correct mumbo jumbo.
 
maddog.mark said:
That was a US judgement, I'm pretty sure they're not a colony anymore;)
Click to expand...

Might be a US judgement but they will still be handing over the information for all users.
 
Yeah I know, but we can't complain the country's going to the dogs on the back of an American Court decision. Don't get me wrong I'm not happy about the decision, although I suspect it was somewhat inevitable given the money involved.
 
I have had occasion to become involved with the Surveillance Commissioners through my work, mainly in relation to surveillance authorised under RIPA but occasionally data protection and human rights issues.

My understanding and is that in order for a person to claim an invasion of privacy they have to have a reasonable expectation of that privacy. If surveillance is directed against an individual for the purpose of collecting evidence / intelligence then it must be authorised as it may breach their human right to privacy. However, an officer would not require such an authorisation to drive along the street past the subjects house and record the registration number of his car, which is sat on the driveway for all to see. In the latter example there can be no reasonable expectation of keeping your number plate private when it is clearly visible from a public road.
With that in mind I can't understand how a member of the public can expect a reasonable degree of privacy whilst walking along a street, particularly in this 'surveillance' society.

I wonder what level of detail Google expect to produce? Are they suggesting a 'live view' or stills taken every day/week?

Beginning to confuse myself here, so I'll throw this out to you guys.:thinking:
 
speaking as someone who currently taking the photos for google i imagine they will just use photos of the shops / businesses updated approx every 6 months.
it will just be an extension of their business directory. thats only a guess, though, as i'm not 100% sure of what they are up to.
 
reddeathdrinker said:
What data protection laws? Are Google going to publish the names and addresses of everyone in the pics or something?
Click to expand...

No but hypothetically, if they take a picture of Joe Blow coming out of his front door or mowing the lawn, in combination with the location, this could be used to identify them from their face using publically available data. Depending on how the judge feels that could be a violation of the Data Protection Act.

This would have no effect on the general right to take pictures of people though. It's the combination of geotagging, images and an electronic indexing system.

Still I doubt the suit will succeed. If it does Google will have to blur the faces out.
 
Comus said:
I have had occasion to become involved with the Surveillance Commissioners through my work, mainly in relation to surveillance authorised under RIPA but occasionally data protection and human rights issues.

My understanding and is that in order for a person to claim an invasion of privacy they have to have a reasonable expectation of that privacy. If surveillance is directed against an individual for the purpose of collecting evidence / intelligence then it must be authorised as it may breach their human right to privacy. However, an officer would not require such an authorisation to drive along the street past the subjects house and record the registration number of his car, which is sat on the driveway for all to see. In the latter example there can be no reasonable expectation of keeping your number plate private when it is clearly visible from a public road.
With that in mind I can't understand how a member of the public can expect a reasonable degree of privacy whilst walking along a street, particularly in this 'surveillance' society.

I wonder what level of detail Google expect to produce? Are they suggesting a 'live view' or stills taken every day/week?

Beginning to confuse myself here, so I'll throw this out to you guys.:thinking:
Click to expand...

An excellent precis of RIPA. What the press don't appreciate is that pre-ripa, enforcement agencies were undertaking surveillance operations without actually having to go through a formal application demonstrating that it was both reasonable and proportional, nor was there much requirement to review such operations and determine when they must end, or keep those records on a register for the Commissioner to audit.

This story is more about data protection, which is the remit of the Information Commissioner. I can't believe that still images of people are going to significantly impinge on peoples right to privacy. Unless they're looking into private gardens etc.
 
I've read a fair bit about the Google face recognition system that they are rolling out on Google Street View in America... it even manages to blur out faces on billboards and faces of animals... pretty funny stuff. I remember seeing some pictures in New York city where the faces of the horses on the carriages in Central Park were blurred out. Obviously still room for refinement, but I guess animals have a right to privacy too.
 
If this is breaks data protection laws, can I get ALL CCTV cameras removed on the same principle.



I do hope so.
 
There is an item on Radio 4 (You & Yours) at the moment. Google (allegedly) promise to remove pictures if someone objects - i.e. if you are sunbathing in the altogether in your front garden and it 'captures' you.

Argument was about invasion of pricacy (not admitted) and comparison with similar in USA which is up and running.

Sally
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top