Greece Halts Google's Street View 192
Hugh Pickens writes "Greece's Data Protection Authority, which has broad powers of enforcement for Greece's strict privacy laws, has banned Google from gathering detailed, street-level images in Greece for a planned expansion of its Street View mapping service, until the company provides clarification on how it will store and process the original images and safeguard them from privacy abuses. The decision comes despite Google's assurances that it would blur faces and vehicle license plates when displaying the images online and that it would promptly respond to removal requests. In most cases, particularly in the US, Google has been able to proceed on grounds that the images it takes are no different from what someone walking down a public street can see and snap. And last month, Britain's privacy watchdog dismissed concerns that Street View was too invasive, saying it was satisfied with such safeguards as obscuring individuals' faces and car license plates. The World Privacy Forum, a US-based nonprofit research and advisory group, said the Greek decision could raise the standard for other countries and help challenge that argument. 'It only takes one country to express a dissenting opinion,' says Pam Dixon, the group's executive director. 'If Greece gets better privacy than the rest of the world then we can demand it for ourselves. That's why it's very important.'"
Re:lunacy (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair to Greece's Data Protection Authority, they do have a problem with police videoing people and have stopped the government using street cameras to fight crime as well.
Re:Breaking News! (Score:5, Informative)
That's not breaking news. The Greeks have history on locking people up for innocently taking photos in public [bbc.co.uk].
Re:So very stupid (Score:3, Informative)
To be fair, the debate is whether or not to allow exhaustive street-level imagery. No one is suggesting making photographs from public locations illegal in general. (Well, some police forces actually are, but that's a separate debate...)
So in other words, you should say: "If you outlaw the acquisition and distribution of exhaustive street-level imagery, only outlaws will produce and distribute exhaustive street-level imagery."
Again, the debate is about whether doing something legal to an exhaustive extent (in this case, creating a massive database of location-specific images that is then freely available) becomes an an illegitimate act with respect to privacy. Many of us would agree that this logic applies in some cases. E.g. there's nothing illegal about looking up public records. But there comes a point where someone is so thoroughly investigating your life (getting all records, taking pictures of you in public, phoning people you know, etc.) that this collection of innocuous legal actions becomes a large illegal action (e.g. "stalking").
Having said all that, I find Google StreetViews very valuable (e.g. for planning trips or scoping out places to go...), so I hope society can reach a compromise that allows these images to be available without unduly infringing on anyone's privacy.
Re:'Street level' a bit misleading (Score:5, Informative)
If you think this [googlified.com] is a "big mast"...
Any average tall adult could take pictures that high...
Re:lunacy (Score:3, Informative)
2 different things (Score:2, Informative)
The Greeks would seem to be specifically asking about how the __original__ images are to be handled, not just how the images which eventually make onto the service will be presented. 2 different things.
Re:Eventually, Google's going to get somebody kill (Score:2, Informative)
What, do you seriously think Google's street-view provides real time updates of it's images?
I couldn't imagine seeing Google's goofy cars driving by at a rate of ~1 per second, ON ALL ROADS IN THE WORLD.
Re:lunacy (Score:3, Informative)
You might not have RTFA, but the Greeks are NOT complaining about the filming per se, but they want to be reassured that the data collected will be protected in accordance with current European law. For example, police recordings are protected or, at least, they have made a case for how they will protect the data which has satisfied the appropriate legal bodies. However, Google has not convinced the Greek authorities that it will provide adequate protection of its data.
Now this might not worry you. But in Europe, collecting the data is only the start of it. Personal data (and that includes identities, addresses, personal habits and traits, a person's car details etc), if stored on computers, can be collected only for a specific purpose and must then be protected from unauthorised use i.e. from being used for any other purpose. Google must state what they intend the authorised use to be (which they have) and then state how they intend to protect the data from any other unauthorised usage (which they haven't yet done). How will they prevent criminals from accessing the data for unauthorised purposes? The claim that it is all in the public domain is a bit of a red herring - criminals don't usually have such a mass of data at their fingertips and, in any event, it is for Google to show how they will comply with the current law not to argue the case for why the current law should be changed. How will they prevent individuals from accessing the data for a purpose other than that intended by Google?
I don't criticise Greece for its actions but I do criticise many other European countries which have simply ignored European law and allowed the data collection to continue. Google might be able to comply with the current legislation and, if they can, they will be allowed to continue.