Google Street View – stroke of genius or invasion of privacy?
Without doubt my favourite image from Google Street View submitted to the BBC in their feature on bizarre images caught by the new service. That said, Google has apparently been hit by a “wave of privacy complaints” after Street View was launched. They said yesterday that it had removed scores of photographs from the site, including an image in London of someone coming out of a sex shop in Soho, a man being sick on a pavement and another man being arrested by police. The broader question of privacy invasion still remains a bit of a grey area, though. The website does have tools to report images, but does anyone buy into broader concerns about the allegedly inappropriate nature of the service itself?
Witanagemot Blogs
Seems suspiscious to me how THEY are not nicked by old Bill every two streets for “carrying a camera in a public place”.
Or “Photographing with intent”, or whatever they invent these days for train spotters, people photographing Policemen, etc.
Maybe thats it, It is not “to stop terrorism” that trainspotters are been collared, it is because lots of thick brown envelopes have changed hands in seedy back street pubs, to ensure “sole rights”. I the A.C.P.O can make money from speed cameras, and “driver reeducation” courses, then…..
Shades of “Dark Angel”?
Von Brandenburg-Preußen.
“..an image in London of someone coming out of a sex shop in Soho, a man being sick on a pavement and another man being arrested by police.”
These, and the image you posted, just seem to sum up the UK so well, don’t they?
The laws on photography do seem a little strange. Google argue that their pictures were taken from a public road and they had no information that you couldn’t get by just walking down a street anyway, but surely photographing someone’s house without permission is illegal and surely these new terrorism laws make driving around with a camera illegal too? It just doesn’t make sense…
Julia, it isn’t exactly a glowing recommendation of our country.
@JuliaM
Such scenes are hardly new, drink, sex and violence having been British mainstays for centuries now. Its just in the modern world we get to see how unpleasant they are to see.
And to be honest, I prefer them out in the open – you don’t become an angel by ignoring the inner demon, you do so by admitting its part of you, having the self-awareness to know it’s there, the self-knowledge its a response to a need and the self-control to handle it responsibly.
British society has a history of glossing a veneer of respectability over itself, in the vain hope to hide the things its ashamed of, yet still indulges in. They never stay hidden for long, and in their hiding we give them tremendous power over us.
Google needs to take care not to publish images of people, or at least pay them for use of their image. Same with private property.
As for the conflicting laws, you forget this is Government – the people just vote them in on occasion, businesses on the other hand sponsor speeches and stall at shows, can offer high-paying jobs, and so get to have more rights than Joe Bloggs.
Large governments presiding over a complex legal structure will always lean to corporatism.
LFAT
March 21st, 2009 at 9:48 am
surely photographing someone’s house without permission is illegal
All depends on intent. But basically no it is not…(or WAS not.
You never know what the dictatorship change at a whim in Britain these days, in fact they needed a special act to stop you photographing military bases at one time).
If you were caught with a jemmy, a stripped vest and a bandit mask on the drive way of a property, and you were found to have photos, and they can prove you took those photo’s to assist you to break in, then the taking of the pictures is illegal.
It is the same as “listening to police radio transmissions”. It is not illegal unless you “make use, or take advantage” of them.
But basically, even if it is “Jimmy Mc Burglar, well known serial moggy robber of this parish” taking the photos, then there is nothing you can really do. Not since the bastards got rid of the “sus” laws anyway.
Whatever, I do not6 think “Google” fit into the description.
I will watch with interest for the upcoming cases where it can be claimed Google photo’s provided instrumental help in commiting a crime though.
Von Brandenburg-Preußen.
Obsidian
March 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am
Google needs to take care not to publish images of people, or at least pay them for use of their image. Same with private property.
No.
You do not own the copyright on your image, nor on any other image unless YOU have produced it. Google are the ones that can sdemand payment if you want a copy of the photo THEY took of YOUR house.
Von Brandenburg-Preußen.
“I will watch with interest for the upcoming cases where it can be claimed Google photo’s provided instrumental help in commiting a crime though.”
Already happened, even before the new ‘Street View’:
http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/4202131.No_jail_for_Google_Earth_lead_thief/
Well at least he knew how to steal roofing lead efficiently!
I think it is wrong and this is going to cause no amount of trouble in peoples personal lives,let alone a gross invasion of privacy.Then of course the police and goverment will get into it somehow.How soon before councils have a room of screens watching for littering,overfilled bins etc.Did you know google already records every word you type for its search engine.It used to be a good company,not any more.
It is hard to judge. I guess most people’s first thought is that it’s a bit creepy. I can certainly see the value to burglars who can quickly case a street as a first pass recon. Also gives them unprecedented easy access to private back gardens which would also suggest levels of wealth and value of target. It also provides the ability to plan their escape. Of course the question is how many burglars are that meticulous? The data also isn’t that current which may negate some of the advantages to nefarious use.
If anything it’s a bit like a phone book in that you have the option to go X-directory. Freely available phone numbers aren’t usually a problem but in some cases it can be. The problem is that unlike BT, many people will be unaware of Google Earth, what data is available and their right to request its removal.
As has been pointed out, this is not illegal until it is used for ill intent by the maker of the photograph.
It is however, distinctly un-British.
I don’t know anybody who wants this or seems to think it is a good idea. It seems that the more technology we have the more we find perverse ways to corrupt it, almost as if we have to find something to do with it to justify the expense of its development.
Makes you wonder who to be more afraid of,stasi labour or stasi google,whats next on their agenda?
Isn’t it really to be used for Sat Nav. Isn’t that the future commercial value once all the people are removed from the streets that a 3d view is going to be given of actual shops, schools, offices etc?
So if your house features on one frame of a multi million frame product what exactly are your financial entitlements and do you retain Visual Artists Rights?
Looks like another job for Patently.
It is the creator of the image that gains finacialy and has the copy right. UNLESS you have your property declared an art object by some obscure Royal college or something I guess.
You have also got to look at how much it is worth. We are talking PENNYS. Unless your house is so spectacular that every one with Google wants to access it and produce posters, T-Shirts, and coffe mugs with your house on it, I do not think you stand a chance.
Von Brandenburg-Preußen.
Has anyone seen one of the google cars doing illegal driving?
How about this one?
Cheers