Privacy regulator the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said that 74 people have written to it about Google's Street View service since its launch last month. It said it would release details of the complaints and enquiries soon. The controversial photo-mapping of 25 UK towns and cities has prompted protests from privacy …
Common sense from a public regulator? What is the world coming to?
Now would all those bleating that Street View is illegal please just STFU (or move to Rockall).
"The photos were of the streets, not the people, and the people simply happened to be on those streets."
And if i was taking a photo of a street scene that also contained a number of mp's or celebrities entiring/leaving a brothel, could I happily publish it as a street scene with a few incidental people in it?
What if i take and publish a picture of a street scene that also happens to contains your bedroom window with you wandering about in the buff?
i have a suspicion the view would be slightly different. The simple solution, is to ban any picture of a person for commerical use, without that person's express permission. So you can have street view if you remove all the advertising!
Still waiting to hear any actual privacy concerns beyond the rather vague mumbling about having a privacy concern - but providing no further information. Any chance of spelling some out for me? I'm genuinely at a loss as to what concerns people about Street View. I believe people are entitled to privacy, so I'd love to be against it. Please help me out!
Expectation of privacy on the street?
"Google may have breached the Data Protection Act while collecting images for Street View because people were not informed that photos were being taken"
I don't understand that. I have commented many times here and elsewhere that it is my understanding that it is perfectly legal to take photographs of anything on a public highway or on public land. I believe there may have been some alterations recently, regarding pictures containing members of our astute police force (if this is the case, it's pretty outrageous, in my opinion) but people that just happen to be on the street are incidental to Google's main aim and I believe they have set a dangerous precedent by offering to blur faces, number plates, etc; out of goodwill. Are all the tourists in London up in arms about being caught on OTHER tourists' cameras? Of course not. Again, if you on the street and in the public eye (don't forget, we are ALL public, you know!) you must expect that other people will see you and whatever it is you happen to be doing. No expectation of privacy, there. What's so different about a camera?
I hope they didn't take any snaps of police officers or vehicles or any particular public buildings that they weren't told they couldn't take snaps of.
Especially snaps of police officers behaving like utter bastards that might get the officer reprimanded.
In fact if you take a picture of a building that is already on streetview then is that an argument against not-being-allowed-to-take-the-picture ?
Hurrah for the ICO
A government organisation with a proportionate response....this must be a first!
"And if i was taking a photo of a street scene that also contained a number of mp's or celebrities entiring/leaving a brothel, could I happily publish it as a street scene with a few incidental people in it?"
Of course not, silly! You'd sell it to The Sun and/or The Daily Mail!
"What if i take and publish a picture of a street scene that also happens to contains your bedroom window with you wandering about in the buff?"
There's a little thing called "curtains" that most people have closed when wandering about in the buff ... ESPECIALLY if that window overlooks a street. There is a term for people who refrain from closing the curtain in such a circumstance ... "convicted of indecent exposure".
"i have a suspicion the view would be slightly different. The simple solution, is to ban any picture of a person for commerical use, without that person's express permission. So you can have street view if you remove all the advertising!"
Advertising? What advertising?
Interesting precedent set here...
What if I go out and take just ONE photo of a general street scene, with the intention of photographing the street, not the people or cars. But people and car number plates are shown, I then publish it on a website, be it a popular site or not. I then put a banner ad on the same page.
Will this Privacy International's Simon Davies p***k try and take me to court or bitch to the ICO about me?
I find it interesting to note the ICOs quite fine response (for once) to this privacy crap. A decent precedent set.
Privacy is one thing, being overzealous in its application is another!
If it happens on the small scale or the large scale like StreetView does, it is no more ominous. And ultimately no different from ourselves walking down a street and LOOKING at it, because our minds also record this supposed sensitive information.
I think its a given now - If an organisation has 'international' in its name, its likely to be full of tw*ts.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY