Main Contributors
Privacy advocacy group ‘Privacy International’ in the UK is all up in arms about Google Street View’s recent endeavor to start mapping out the streets of England. The BBC writes about it here.
Privacy debates are always interesting to me, because despite the legitimate points that can be raised on either side of the issue, I find that arguments are always riddled with false analogies and fallacies galore1. Take this argument, for example:
“In our view they need a person’s consent if they make use of a person’s face for commercial ends,” said Simon Davis of the group.
The problem with this argument is that Google does not intend to use peoples’ faces for commercial ends. If anything, the people (and their faces) are in the way of what the Street View teams are trying to accomplish — the faces are incidental to the purpose of the project. This is an example of a false premise; Privacy International is assuming that the purpose of Street View is to take pictures of people to use commercially, when they are actually taking pictures of streets and buildings to use commercially. Furthermore, you can always ask Google to remove your image if you don’t like all of the fame and wealth associated with being an internet celebrity. I’m fairly certain that the people over at Privacy International are aware of the false premise, but they will continue to make this argument because it’s one that will allow them to challenge Google on a legal basis (if it ever comes to that).
However, what really takes the cake is this next section:
But Privacy International says it has doubts about the technology.
It has written to the search giant and asked for technical information about the system.
If the group does not get the answer it seeks within seven days, Mr Davies said it would write to the Information Commissioner seeking a suspension of the service in the UK.
Yes, the privacy advocacy group is threatening to take action against Google if they don’t reveal their proprietary (read: private) methods.
“We’ve spoken to Google in the past about this and received a snide response telling us to look more closely at their blogs.
Google is a for-profit organization. They don’t work in open-source code, and the proprietary methods they use to gather information is what allows them to stay ahead of their competition in what is arguably the most competitive marketplace of all time (the internet, in case you were wondering). Understanding this, Google has been incredibly open regarding their methods, privacy policies, and activities. To me, it sounds like Mr. Davies of Privacy International is being a jerk.
In the US it is legal to take photos of people on public streets. But Mr Davies believes that because Street View is being used for commercial ends anyone in the UK who appears in the photo needs to grant his or her consent.
Returning to the previously-mentioned false premise, in the UK, just like in the US, it is legal to take photos of people on public streets or in public areas. This whole thing seems like nothing more than a way to weasel in an argument against Google under the guise of a legitimate concern for people’s images being abused by a big scary corporation, when in reality, Google couldn’t care less if your face were in its photos (in fact, Google would probably prefer your face not to be obscuring its intended target).
This whole kerfuffle seems to be part of a larger trend in the UK (and in the US and Canada) where photography in general has become a suspicious activity in the eyes of the public. The rumor mills have been working overtime, turning out completely unfounded stories about terrorists who take photographs of their targets under the guise of photography. This has culminated in a mass paranoia towards pictures of public places or events being taken. However, Google is really just providing a useful service to the public for (essentially) free. You might not like having your photo taken, but Google is behaving within the bounds of the law, and is not violating your privacy any more than any other person who decides to go out and take pictures in public.
Suck it up, Britain.
—
- Granted, a lot of the time this depends on the legal framework in which you are operating. ↩
2 responses so far ↓
1
Teshi // Jul 31, 2008 at 9:17 am
Well, imagine that you were photographed walking past, say, a strip club wearing a rather unfortunate expression, and you garnered fame as Strip Club Man.
Or say you were cheating on your wife and you were photographed going into your ex’s apartment building.
Or say you had a private love for tiny replica cars and you were caught peering through the windows of your favourite hobby shop.
I think this is the kind of privacy Privacy International mean. Of course, it’s unlikely that you will be caught in a compromising position, as it were, and I imagine that Google will be trying to minimize, as you say, the number of people who appear prominently in their photographs by photographing early in the morning.
It’s not that you’re pictured… it’s HOW you’re pictured.
2
Mitchell Gerskup // Jul 31, 2008 at 9:53 am
Still, it’s not a violation of somebody’s right to privacy to photograph them walking out of a strip club or peering into the window of a hobby shop. This is something that everybody is allowed to do (and rightly so). The obvious answer is that if you don’t want people to see you going into a strip club, either don’t do it, or wear a disguise.
The first, and most obvious, reason why public photography (even of embarrassing) situations has to be legal is the freedom of the press, and the type of abuses that can be raised once we start giving the state control of what public places you can and cannot photograph. The second, more subtle, reason is that you don’t have a right to privacy in public places. Granted I’m not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the right to privacy only applies in situations where you would expect a reasonable right to privacy. Walking out of a strip club onto a public street where other people can see you is not a situation where you would reasonably expect privacy. Google Street View is only interested in gathering images of publicly accessible spots (for now), and so nobody’s right to privacy is being violated.
As for cheating on your spouse, not that I think it’s a particularly good idea, but if you managed to get caught by a car driving slowly down the street with 8 cameras mounted prominently on the roof, you’re probably not going to fare too well against a suspicious partner or private investigator. Also, serves them right.
This is the type of privacy that a lot of individuals are worried about, but this isn’t what Privacy International is saying. They’re saying that Google wants to exploit that picture of you peering into a toy shop for some commercial ends. I would agree that they require permission before they could sell that image to a toy company to use in a commercial, but that’s not what Google is doing. As it stands, the whole complaint is kind of silly.
You must log in to post a comment.