Slashdot Log In
Google Street View Raises Privacy Concerns
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 01, 2007 08:42 AM
from the we-see-everybody-now dept.
from the we-see-everybody-now dept.
Pcol writes "The New York Times is running a story about a woman who says her cat is clearly visible through the living room window of her second-floor apartment using Street View and that she has contacted Google asking that the photo be removed. 'The issue that I have ultimately is about where you draw the line between taking public photos and zooming in on people's lives,' Ms. Kalin-Casey said in an interview. 'The next step might be seeing books on my shelf. If the government was doing this, people would be outraged.' Wired has started a contest on the most interesting photos found using the new Google Tool that now includes sunbathing coeds, alleged drug deals, and the google van itself. 'I think that this product illustrates a tension between our First Amendment right to document public spaces around us, and the privacy interests people have as they go about their day,' says Kevin Bankston, a staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
Related Stories
[+]
Privacy Group Gives Google Lowest Possible Grade 260 comments
The Washington Post is reporting on a finding by London-based group Privacy International. In a new report, they find that Google has some of the worst privacy-protection practices anywhere on the web, giving them the lowest possible grade. "While a number of other Internet companies have troubling policies, none comes as close to Google to 'achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy,' Privacy International said in an explanation of its findings. In a statement from one of its lawyers, Google said it aggressively protects its users' privacy and stands behind its track record. In its most conspicuous defense of user privacy, Google last year successfully fought a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding to review millions of search requests."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
not just her cat (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's perfectly reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
No it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be perfectly reasonable if her blinds were closed (which would lend credence to them 'invading' her privacy)
But it isn't even remotely reasonable because she keeps her blinds open! If you don't want someone to take pictures of you, or see you doing the nasty, or anything else inside your house, close your blinds, otherwise you have no expectation of privacy, either from the government, or from your fellow citizens.
Parent
Re:No it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no, no. You can't be expected to be living out of a dungeon (or in your parents' basement if that sounds more familiar for
Interestingly enough, this sort of thing makes "regular" people the victim of what celebrities have had to endure increasingly for a long time. I'm sure there are many readers of tabloids enjoying the latest mega-zoom-lens pictures of Jennifer Aniston eating her bagel in bed, whilst complaining that the Google-van is invading the oh-so sacred privacy when taking pics from the streets.
Parent
Re:No it isn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
So not having your blinds wide open is "living out of a dungeon" then? Blinds have a variety of settings, and most of them allow privacy. Even some of the settings that let light in the windows protect privacy.
But the real question is: what is the hysteria about? I understand the preference for privacy, but I don't understand the desperate, hysterical need for it. What's the tragedy when a little privacy is lost? (Normally, in matters where privacy is more valued, people tend to be discrete.)
It's not like Google is trying to force anyone to do anything. They aren't trying to steal anything from anyone. No extortion. No blackmail. No motives at all really, except to sell ads by helping people avoid getting lost.
So what should I be scared of? There's some great danger lurking out there that you folks seem to know about, but I don't. I'm ignorant of the horrible peril I'm supposedly in. Please tell me.
Parent
Re:No it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
A fictional company that dumps toxic waist in a residential area may not have a motive to kill off the residence. They may simply see it as cheap way to dispose of waste, making them more profit. Similarly while google might not have a motive to destroy privacy they are doing so. In all situations people (companies are run by people) need to consider the public benefit. If a product or service does more harm then good to the public as a whole, then it needs to be removed, even if it is profitable.
If it is not removed by the company then it should be removed by the state.
Parent
Re:No it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trollish comment aside, here's why I can't believe that:
Your Comment presupposes that liberty is what I want to do, and not what others see me doing.
You want people to freely do whatever they wish with their windows open, without someone watching. Guess what? People can and will watch, and unless your blinds are closed, or they are on your property, what they are doing is simply an extension of their rights as citizens. The same rights you have.
If you don't want people to take pictures, or watch you, close the blinds. You cannot complain, and certainly cannot sue or try to get someone in legal trouble because they 'invaded' your privacy by taking pictures in a clearly open window.
Parent
Re:No it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most laws that might defend some of your privacy are not intended to protect your privacy, but rather your wallet. You can sue the crap out of someone for using your image/likeness (thats why TV shows always have those waivers) especially if its for a commercial purpose.
I challenge you to find those laws you are talking about. I would be willing to bet if you walked down the street taking pictures through peoples windows, and the police got called on you the only thing that would happen is they would tell you to stop. Maybe worse if you look like a terrorist
Technology is rapidly changing our whole environment. You may notice from observing people that they hate it when their own privacy is violated, but they will violate someone elses privacy in a heartbeat. What happens when everybody (not just your big brother) has cameras and access to the internet? Well, the definition of privacy will change. It has already changed quite a bit, ignoring the big brother surveillance going on, we can look at facebook and myspace. People over 40 generally don't go near these sites because they feel like it would violate the hell out of their privacy, yet students and youngsters use these sites to broadcast their lives to the internet everyday. A lot of slashdotters mourn the loss of privacy with stories about governments and organizations using technology to invade our lives, but sooner rather than later we are going to see our brothers and sisters have the capability to do the very same.
Personally, I think its quite exciting to see how we will adapt to the changing environment. Has anyone ever talked to an old person (over 60) that hates cell phones, or only carries one during the day because they feel like they have no privacy if they carry it at all times? We picked up cell phones like they were there all along, and I believe we will do the same with cameras+gps+internet.
Parent
Re:What I would do... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know that brings up an interesting thought. What if someone hangs a 2A0 goatse picture on their wall, or is sitting in the living room jacking off to girls gone wild (thinking about the co-ed discussion further back). Google comes along and shoots it in the street view. So now we can zoom in and see this. Where does this fall?
1) Invasion of privacy
2) Distribution of pr0n by google
3) Public obscenity by the person who's house it is?
(/. caveat:- If you don't like the examples please insert your own, my point is about the various ways of looking at the implications of the situation)
Parent
Re:Well that's perfectly reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, if you can take a picture of it while standing on your own land, or on public land, then it's legitimate. People are generally understood to not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" if they can be seen doing what they're doing from a public street.
Parent
Google can see her, but she can't see Google (Score:5, Insightful)
A true statement and a valid point, but there's a piece missing from the "walking down the street" analogy that seems to be eluding most of us. When a person walks down the street and looks into a home through a street-facing window, it's extremely unlikely that the window is actually a one-way mirror that only allows viewing in. So yes, they can see what's inside, but anyone inside can also see them. Stop and think about that for a moment, because it's a natural check-and-balance mechanism that, in my opinion, should not be left out of these sorts of privacy discussions: While you can't deny other people the right to look at you in public without your permission, it's only fair that you get to look at them at the same time. If nothing else, it's reasonable to at least have the opportunity to know who is looking.
But with Google Street View, or the Zaio Corp. database [azstarnet.com], or any similar endeavor, you don't get that courtesy. Even if you were lucky enough to spot the camera in the ten to fifteen seconds it was visible, you still don't know how many millions of people just looked into your life at that moment. And don't forget this is Google we're talking about: among other things, the new background checker for lazy hiring managers, who naturally have your home address at the top of your résumé. Suddenly anyone who lives in a Street View-covered area had better:
For the record, I like Street View. I've been hoping Google would add something like that for some time. But don't gloss over the privacy concerns by equating walking down the street and looking through a window with driving a van down hundreds of streets taking millions of photographs and associating them with street addresses on the world's largest search engine. Only one of these makes your private life public, and it's not the first one.
Parent
Re:Well that's perfectly reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
People should either:
- get over it and accept people can see/find things that you do in public
- close their blinds or otherwise reduce the amount of their lives that are visible to the public.
It seems entirely obvious that if there is something you don't want seen by strangers, you should take efforts to keep it out of their sight. It's entirely possible to have a private life, just not in public spaces.
Parent
There's a solution to that (Score:5, Funny)
And that will be the end of google views.
Parent
Old news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, copyright law states (IANAL) that you can take pictures of people in their homes from the street. Only no zooming, and with (I think) a 55mm lens at best. Look up the case law. The only think I think that may be challenged in court is if high res photos at 55mm constitutes some kind of new zoom...
Re:Old news... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
"Best Urban Images" (Score:5, Informative)
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/request_f or_urb.html [wired.com]
But... if you can see it from the street,... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I understand the objections. If I go to a strip club, and I am seen leaving it, well, then, I was a douchebag for not being sneakier about it, if I don't want anybody to know.
Is the problem that the photos are being published on a widely-used web page?
i could've told you what kind of cat she has... (Score:5, Insightful)
this is only news-worthy because it has a couple buzzwords like "google" and "privacy concerns". meanwhile, the people who are actually tapping your phone/internet traffic/watching you continue to perpetrate *horrendous* privacy violations, and nobody cares because of watered-down crap like this. if we're going to be morally outraged by something, let's pick something actually scandalous, m'kay?
Personally (Score:5, Interesting)
We were dying laughing for nearly 10 minutes thinking about a big google van driving through the slums and taking panoramic photos.
Christ we are geeks.
Don't think she has a case... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't think she has a case... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's almost precisely the same line the Bush administration used to justify residential wiretapping. You're playing with fire there. People should have the right to privacy in their own homes. I say it's okay for Google to photograph a house's exterior, but not the interior.
Parent
Cue "In Soviet Russia" jokes. (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK is just as bad. We refuse to extradite a Russian oligarch to Russia to stand trial on numerous serious charges ranging from fraud to terrorism, then complain when the Russians won't extradite a Russian to us to stand trial for murder. But of course we are the good guys.
Parent
Re:And they missed the obvious moral high ground.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
"Coeds"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Offtopic, I know, but "sunbathing coeds"? As in "sunbathing students of both genders" or as in "sunbathing women"? Why do we refer to women like they're anomalies at academic institutions?
At my school, we have something like 60% women... should we call men "co-eds"?
Go ahead, mod me down as offtopic, but this kind of thing irks me.
Parent