Google's Streetview Seen As Culturally Insensitive In Japan 524
Jim O'Connell writes "Global Voices has a translation of an excellent open letter to Google by Osamu Higuchi, explaining that Street view is too invasive for Japanese traditional values when used in residential areas.
Having lived here for ten years, most recently in an older residential area, I can attest to its accuracy — Living in such close proximity to your neighbors, it becomes necessary to 'not look' at everything that you might be able see from a place such as the street, where you may have a legal right to be. The cultural boundaries are simply different than those of the US."
Same here. (Score:5, Insightful)
The cultural boundaries are simply different than those of the US.
It's that way here in the U.S. too. It is impolite to take photos in people's windows. Google just doesn't care.
Re:Same here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know that what google is doing is taboo seeing as they are a technology in this case not a person.
And Google is not run by people?
No addresses in Japan. (Score:4, Insightful)
For a country like Japan that doesn't use "addresses" Streetview is a god send.
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the people at Google were reviewing the images then yes it would be 'run by people'. But I imagine the process is almost completely automated by this point. The invasion of privacy is to look at someone's house. Not the camera capturing the image.
It's a question of ethics. A camera cannot commit an immoral act. Only a photographer can. Google's web crawler cannot be charged with child pornography possession if it simply indexes a page containing child pornography. Google's street view is nothing more than an automated tool which captures data.
It only becomes a question of morality when someone chooses to view those images. Morality can only be tied into intent. If you view child pornography on accident then you have not commited an immoral act. If you intend to view child pornography and you view it then you've committed an immoral act.
Morals only when someone can see you? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I know it is a touchy subject in general, I find their reason odd. If no one wanted to look because of morals, they wouldn't look when they couldn't get caught either. That kind of defeats their higher moral ground argument.
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the act of looking at Streetview that the writer is talking about. It's the act of photographers working for Google who take pictures of places that the common culture would deem too private to be photographed and then putting those up for everyone to see. People taking pictures of your house and inside your windows without your knowledge is very much an immoral act in my book.
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:2, Insightful)
Google created this technology and control it, therefore they are responsible for it's use.
Re:Same here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. A total bullshit statement, pardon my french. It is not that Google does not care either. It is a pervasive campaign by government and corporations to remove all expectations of privacy from anywhere EXCEPT private property that is literally 100% covered from view. Google is not supposed to "be evil". Yeah right. I'll believe that when they stop keeping logs well past 12 months. I don't mean to bash specifically on Google or anything, but they don't seem to have a stellar track record with respect to consumer's rights and expectations of privacy.
That kind of behavior is not remotely consistent with our cultural values. Our cultural values are diverse as well, as we are a nation of immigrants. I don't know a single person that is comfortable being on a security camera while in their backyard or even in the front yard. It's just not acceptable.
Obviously where the US and Japan differ, is that the Japanese still strongly fight for their expectations of privacy or "cultural values" while in the US there is a sense of apathy and hopelessness. Those that would dare to speak up and passionately fight for anonymity, privacy, and just plain decent respect for other people's boundaries get labeled as subversive, unpatriotic, fanatical, and paranoid.
For the RECORD, I would have to say that AMERICAN VALUES (which anybody can have regardless of nationality, race, gender, etc.) is STRONGLY supportive of both privacy and anonymity. We like to to be free, and do exactly what we want when we want it, within reason of course. We don't believe that we should have to walk around in public or private identifying ourselves to anyone that asks, especially when we are just minding our own business. If someone is watching us, then we want to know who it is. There is a lot more too it, but it is not even remotely close to how I personally feel.
I guess I just resent the implication since it makes it sound like we are a totalitarian fascist country devoid of any of the freedoms we once cherished, fought, and died to protect. I guess I resent more that maybe, it is in fact, a correct assessment and that we ended up exporting all of our freedom and democracy while losing it all.
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:4, Insightful)
The notion of what is taboo is generally applied to actions, not people or things. In this case, the action would be 1) viewing things considered private by this society and 2) publishing these things and making them extremely searchable.
In other words, totally freaking taboo.
Re:Megacorp versus Local Community, Again? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one step beyond the irrational fear of a photograph stealing away your soul - in this case the people feared for where not in the photograph and it would take a lot of effort to link the two. Hopefully exploring this irrational fear this will launch some social pychologist on a shining career when they work out what is broken in people's heads that makes this fear so common.
You conveniently ommitting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Google won those suits, for the most part.
Real estate (Score:5, Insightful)
Well Japan may not like Street View, and maybe some people here in the U.S. don't like it either.
But I'm currently looking for a new (well new to me) house to buy --and where I need to move to is several hundred miles from where I live now.
Google Street View has been a godsend for me --I can get a easy idea of the neighborhood and usually the property it's self --for free, from home.
So, as usual, any new use of technology has upsides as well as downsides... and who ever I buy the house from will be very happy about my use of Street view. (eventually I will have to go and take a physical look, but my list of places to look at will be vastly shorter because of S.V.)
Re:Same here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's taboo to spy on your neighbors then don't use Google's street view. Or at the very least keep the view centered on the road.
Ah, yes, always push responsibility away, isn't it? Don't you feel this clashes with all the fine words about privacy that we always hear so much about on Slashdot? Or is privacy only important when you hide your own lurid little affair from the view of the authorities? If privacy is all-important, then it is important even to people you don't care about.
partial solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Same here. (Score:4, Insightful)
We recently got Street View in Australia and I honestly cant see what the privacy fuss is about.
My house is on it. It looks pretty good.
Nothing invading my privacy at all.
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I guess that's the root of the argument isn't it.
Is Google responsible for how you use their technology?
Is BitTorrent responsible for piracy? It sure does make piracy convenient!
Street view has a legitimate use and an insensitive and privacy invasive use. Which it becomes is not a property of the photo but of the viewer.
If there were a real-world means of preventing someone from seeing something which google was circumventing then YES google would be violating privacy. Google is simply refusing to pass judgement on a user's legal request for information. Google is not in the business of determining what is and is not "sensitive". Maybe looking at porn is taboo or even 'sinful' but that's not Google's responsibility that's yours.
Every webpage and blog on the internet can contain extrmely private information about my life. Maybe there is a Blog by someone I know detailing my every unfavorable action. It's not Google's responsibility to not index that. If the information is legal then it should be indexed without any bias or prejudice on Google's part.
Are you honestly suggesting that Google should be censoring content it indexes based on "morality" and not legality? Maybe it shouldn't index wiccan webpages. Wicca is tabboo. Christian Moms might not expect their children to learn more about wicca.
TFA says that someone taking pictures would be taken to the police station for "Questioning". In other words you would be harassed and if you weren't plotting an actual crime let go without a charge. What the Japanese people are about to discover is that their expectation of privacy was ALREADY too high. They were thinking anybody who was insensitive and snooping would be discovered. This was a false sense of security. It was already trivial to take photos of a place you thought was private... legally... and without being noticed.
What should be suprising and shocking isn't that Google is doing it. But that if Google is doing it anby who is sufficiently motivated could do it.
Not just Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
Street View is too intrusive for residential neighborhoods in the USA.
Stick to city centers, airports, freeways. Stay out of neighborhoods. Don't be evil.
Re:Hypocrisy is only wrong when someone else does (Score:5, Insightful)
I have blonde hair and blue eyes. Every time I have visited China I have been practically assaulted by Japanese tourists. They not only photo me. They try and touch my hair and start posing in front of me etc etc etc. Needless to say this was unappreciated.
My aunt lives in Hawaii and japanese tourists are amazed by the size of her feet. She's been lieing on the beach and had Japanese tourists come up and lay down right next to her and have their pictures taken by their family with their feet right next to hers for comparison.
It's been my conclusion that any view of privacy on the part of the Japanese is strictly limited to the island of Japan. Which I've never had a problem with from a priacy standpoint--just a personal intrusion. I don't care if I'm in a photo. I do care that I'm being prevented from going about my business by someone standing in my way trying to pose in front of me. Or touching me. They can touch my blonde hair photos on the internet all they want as long as I don't have to be there while you do it.
Re:It's called self-control (Score:3, Insightful)
One usually CONSENTS to being in pornography....
Re:Hypocrisy is only wrong when someone else does (Score:5, Insightful)
The japaneese take pictures of sidewalks.... they have this love for the cammera that i will never understand.
However, dont get them wrong: its completely harmless and they dont go publizicing them all over.
On the other hand, google is selling your life for profit: there is a difference there.
Re:Same here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Anything that can be seen from the middle of the street, with Google's camera, or eyeballs, ain't got nothin' to do with privacy.
Get off your American Values high horse.
Someone shoving their (cat, ass, sex act,) into the front of the house plate glass window is not fighting for their privacy. Or American Values.
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the Japanese people are about to discover is that their expectation of privacy was ALREADY too high.
And who gave you the right to decide how each country and culture should think? You might not agree with the Japanese view - tough luck, just don't choose to live there. But you have not got the right to tell others that they are wrong simply because it is not in accord with your own personal view or it isn't the view adopted by your own country.
Are you honestly suggesting that Google should be censoring content it indexes based on "morality" and not legality?
No, but Google shouldn't be conducting itself in a manner which local custom and culture say is unacceptable. If Google doesn't like it then they can go elsewhere. I'm sure that there are huge expanses of the USA which haven't been photographed yet. Why not concentrate on their home ground and then, if other nation's decide that it is a good idea - and perhaps there is money to be made - they can invite Google to do the same in their country.
By the way, has Google tried doing this in some parts of Russia yet? There are areas occupied by the 'nouveau riche' where they will be lucky to leave alive. Ditto, there are areas in China and N Korea I believe where they will not be welcomed. You see, I don't think that they will operate in such places with the same degree of freedom as they expect in some other places, because those nations deem it unacceptable behaviour.
Re:Same here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I love it, and my mum was thrilled with being able to find her house on street view. One great use that immediately comes to mind is using it to show people which house is mine on invitations and such, since it can be hard to find...
Re:The land of the free (as in beer). (Score:4, Insightful)
You mention a lot of problems, yet also don't mention any Americans that you KNOW that actually AGREE with what is taking place.
There is a BIG difference between what is actually happening in the US and what the average American is actually comfortable with. Bush does not have an approx. 30% approval rating for no reason.
I don't know a single person that is comfortable with the examples you gave. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Everybody I have ever had a conversation with, in person, is as outraged and disturbed as you are by the erosion of privacy.
The real problem is one of representation. The average US Citizen has NO REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER. I would state 100,000% that ONLY companies and various organizations get represented in US government today. There is NO VOICE for privacy rights, anonymity, and freedom anymore. It is just one long continuation of arguments and supporting events (which some claim are manufactured) to progressively remove all rights to privacy of any kind. RIGHT DOWN TO YOUR DNA. If they really can read thoughts in a decade or two, I would not even be surprised if that loses it's privacy too.
So I REALLY understand your point, but please UNDERSTAND MINE. The America you are talking about is not one that was created by the people. It was created over the protest of Americans every single step of the way.
Re:I LOVE Google Streetview! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bull. Not only did that letter from the Japanese guy sound just like the letters many Americans have written re Streetview, thus negating the whole "it's another culture" argument, but it's an objectively wrong stance and catering to it is harmful.
Reality. People need to cope with it. They're visible. If they're doing something interesting their neighbors are already taking pictures, they just aren't (yet) sharing them in an easily indexable way.
If you complain about this you'll go on acting like you have privacy until it becomes painfully obvious that you don't. If you suck it up and act now, regardless of your cultural preference, as if you do not have privacy where you do not (publicly visible areas) you will not get a rude awakening.
Banning Google's Streetview would prevent people from seeing the area, but would not prevent an enemy of yours from placing a perfectly legal webcam and watching you specifically, or sharing this data - it would merely prevent all the other uses.
Don't feed the concern trolls.
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:4, Insightful)
Who are you to tell me that my culture of pointing out stupid superstitions and useless beliefs is a bad one? I have as much right to criticize stupid views as people do to hold them.
It's not disregard for a strange culture though, it's an unwillingness to oblige stupid requests. I'd say the same to anyone who requested that their publicly viewable house not be photographed.
These people simply need to deal with reality. They're visible. If that doesn't bother them when eyeballed, they simply need to learn to feel that way about photos. It'd be harder to stop photos than to make unbreakable DRM, and such an invasion upon photographers rights to have a memory aid to things they've seen. It'd just be pure insanity if we were to actually give these people what would be required to accommodate them. If Google can't do this, can individuals do it? Of smaller areas? Just not to share? What's the penalty for violation? What are the allowable exceptions? What sort of crazy rules and jackbooted enforcement policies would we be left with?
Far better that people just grow up and smell the cameras.
Re:Japan respects privacy??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you mean like the way the visitors to the USA are treated?
Re:Same here. (Score:4, Insightful)
And in the real world, we evolved curtains.
The land of the apathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody I have ever had a conversation with, in person, is as outraged and disturbed as you are by the erosion of privacy. [...] I would state 100,000% that ONLY companies and various organizations get represented in US government today. [...] The America you are talking about is not one that was created by the people. It was created over the protest of Americans every single step of the way.
Yeah right. Most Americans don't think about and don't care about these issues. Yeah, if you have a conversation with one they'd probably say they don't like it. Maybe they'd even be "outraged". But would that make them protest or otherwise take political action? Keep them up at night? Or even make them think much about it later? No. Not beyond a tiny minority that is over-represented here on Slashdot.
The America being spoken of was not created by corporations, but by public apathy.
Re:Same here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Culture vs. law.... If it isn't illegal than that culture should have passed laws to protect itself
Not all countries are like America. Some other countries don't make a habit of sueing each other, but would prefer more civilized approaches. Like, for instance writing a letter [globalvoicesonline.org] and asking them to respect local culture.
Re:Same here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Any systematic mass surveillance by a single group is something to at least be concerned about. Assuming that the biggest threat to privacy in human history (Google) will never cause any ill effects is, to be blunt, naive. Most human cultures naturally value privacy, even if a few individuals in those cultures don't care, and there are plenty of good reasons we have evolved that way. The fact that in recent years technology has reached the point where mass surveillance, storage and searching have become realistically possible does not mean such an activity is harmless.
More "we're so different" rubbish (Score:2, Insightful)
I read the letter in question by Osamu Higuchi. Like nearly all entries in the "culturally opposite ways of thinking" category, it's a bunch of assertion backed by NO PROOF.
Concerned people everywhere in the world have pointed out Higuchi's same privacy concerns about Google Street View. While millions more around the world - including in Japan! - aren't concerned enough to say a word. Where's the difference? Show me EMPIRICALLY.
As a resident of Japan for over 20 years, I get so tired of "we're so different" claims that are backed by nothing more than the speaker's desperate wish for it to be true. (Unfortunately, I fear that other people will pick up on Higuchi's blather and shout "me too!", just because it scratches that itch for "cultural difference" posturing. )
Folks, feel free to ignore this nonsense. Until someone proves otherwise, there's nothing different going on in Japan here. (And always, ALWAYS, treat with utmost skepticism anyone claiming out of the blue to speak for the "cultural mindset" of tens of millions of strangers, nearly all of whom wouldn't known the talker from a hole in the ground.)
Re:More "we're so different" rubbish (Score:2, Insightful)
Folks, feel free to ignore this nonsense. Until someone proves otherwise, there's nothing different going on in Japan here. (And always, ALWAYS, treat with utmost skepticism anyone claiming out of the blue to speak for the "cultural mindset" of tens of millions of strangers, nearly all of whom wouldn't known the talker from a hole in the ground.)
But now YOU appear to be speaking for the cultural mindset of millions of strangers.... jya nai?
Additionally you ask for empirical proof - but what would constitute "empirical proof" of the standard you appear to be demanding, either for, or against the proposition? (I assume you believe that there are SOME cultural differences between Japan and -say - the UK or US? - Attitudes to nudity for example. Or to the place of religion and faith in society.
For each such "believed difference" - how would one go about "proving" it - or "disproving" it - to the standard you demand?
Japanese exceptionalism is irritating - but no worse than British, US, French or Israeli exceptionalism - and it should not blind one to the very real differences that exist amongst the cultures.
Re:Same here. (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple truth is that there is not and never has been any expectation of privacy in a public place. That's what public means. Every cop car drives around with a camera in the front grill which is potentially on 24/7 (in some jurisdictions it is required to be so.) Every asshole out there (including me) has a camera phone and a legal right to use it on public property or for that matter, in any place which is treated as public property, which in the US includes shopping malls and hotels without a door guard (not as in "welcome to the hotel", but "where is your room key.")
Bottom line: don't do things you want to keep private in public. The law is crafted thus already, and with good reason: there is no way to maintain your privacy in public. As such, anyone who thinks they are entitled to it there is delusional.
I have a legal right to take pictures of the front of your house, and of you if you are in the window, whether your wabbly bits are flapping in the breeze or not.
Re:Not all cultures are the same (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, most people are average or below, yet they are all told they should look out for number one and compete, and all of life will be grand.
Western culture is like one of those dysfunctional families where the kids need to hide food in the closet because they can't trust their parents.
I personally think the whole thing is caused by the second world war, when entire continents of men abandoned their women and left for a decade. It caused the breakdown of trust in the family unit, and that destroyed everything.
All these "Human Rights" we think are so grand a conception, they're more like people bargaining with death. I don't want to have trust and warmth in my community, I don't trust my fellow man, I want rules and rights.
The sooner they're wiped from human consciousness, along with the maladapted cultures that cling to them, the better off humanity will be.
Re:Same here. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am continually amazed by the fact that so many people fail to see a significant difference between any individual (you, me, a cop) taking photos or video in a public place, and a company like Google taking photos across cities and permanently posting those photos on a publicly available website.
There is a reasonable expectation that individuals, even police, are not going to be driving around entire cities continually taking photos and posting them permanently online. Our current laws and behavior are based on that expectation.
The fact is, Google's Street View is doing something very different than what you are talking about, and on a much larger scale. While it may not be illegal (and who knows, state laws probably vary as to whether it is or not), it's certainly novel and unexpected, and it's not at all unreasonable for people to wonder if it's appropriate.
Re:The land of the free (as in beer). (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm reasonably certain there isn't a country on Earth where the common expectation is that anyone taking a picture in public will ask every single person who might end up in the shot if it's okay with them. Go find a picture taken by German, Japanese, whatever country's tourists in Times Square. You think any of them has ever once asked the hundreds of people milling about if it was okay to take a picture?
I agree with you in general, but let's not go overboard.
Re:Not just Japan (Score:3, Insightful)
How are you going to case a house from street view?
Casing a house doesn't just mean "check if nobody's home". There's all kinds of tells to look for, and if you can check out thousands of houses at once you can look for better opportunities for an in-person visit MUCH more effectively.
Re:Same here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed I sort of am saying that those things are not acceptable in your culture (or even in mine) but may well be considered okay in another and that, I suppose, is the difference between you and I.
For instance, I don't think that rap should even be called music and should be banned. Thus it is never on in my home.
In your home, if you so desire, you're free to do as you'd like, even listening to rap.
Exchange "home" for country.
The only thing I would argue for would be more freedom to move to a new/different country, other than that if a country wants women to wear stuff on their heads, hates homosexuals, or wants to force everyone to wear a rubber chicken as a necktie it is all good by me.
Just make the rules clear.
Re:I thought Taboos applied to people not things. (Score:3, Insightful)
And who gave you the right to decide how each country and culture should think? You might not agree with the Japanese view - tough luck, just don't choose to live there. But you have not got the right to tell others that they are wrong simply because it is not in accord with your own personal view or it isn't the view adopted by your own country.
I'm not judging their belief. I completely agree with it. It should be taboo to snoop on your neighbors and stare at them. All that I'm saying is that Google is not the problem--the problem is the Japanese people are about to come to terms with REALITY. The reality is that people who want to snoop on them can do so legally and without being discovered.
They have been living on the assumption that that is not true. They are now discovering that that is wrong.
My exact phrase was "Expectation of Privacy". The reasonable expectation of privacy is that you can do something with knowledge of who knows about it. I can legally control who is in my apartment at any given time. Therefore anything I do inside my apartment has a reasonable expectation of privacy since my actions reflect what I know can be seen while inside my apartment. If I am naked in front of an open window on a busy street it might be taboo for people to look at me but I also have to realzie that my reasonable expectation of privacy has been expanded to the public domain.
Before the invention of cameras your reasonable expectation of privacy while in a public space was the people you could see. Therefore in the case of alleyways you had a reasonable expectation of privacy extending to people who happened to walk by and if a flock of insensitive german tourists can running through with cameras you could react and hide yourself before more than 2 or 3 saw you.
Cameras--not google obliterated that expectation of privacy. People have to become aware of what was true before Google Street View. They had already lost that privacy.
So I'm not being critical of the Japanese Culture. I'm being critical of those who say that this is a new problem and a problem limited to Google. This is a case where a cultural expectation and reality are out of sync.
This is like people complaining that security exploits known by hackers should be kept hidden. The only people who are kept out of the dark by not making commonly known security exploits public are the people who need to know they're at risk.
Re:Same here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.