All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
24 Mar 2009
Privacy International has filed a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) about Google's Street View, citing 200 individuals who have objected to certain images.
The complaint has heightened already fraught tensions between the two organisations, and has led Privacy International to seek legal advice after Google suggested that the group is "far from impartial".
Street View, launched in the UK last week, gives a 360-degree view of particular streets by merging photos collected by Google drivers using car-mounted cameras.
Google was given authorisation to launch the system in the UK because it promised to use blurring technology to hide people's faces. Citizens who are still able to distinguish themselves can ask for the image to be removed entirely.
Immediately after the mapping system went live, Google had to pull images that upset early testers who had identified themselves in the photos. For example, Google took down a man seen vomiting in Shoreditch, and another man outside a Soho sex shop.
Privacy International has argued that the face blurring technology is not working effectively. It has also claimed that pulling images after users feel that their privacy has been violated is not an adequate safeguard to protect people's liberties.
"Why, under this reasoning, should not all commercial organisations be permitted to collect limitless volumes of personal data without consent on the promise that specific items of data will be removed on request?" asked Simon Davis, Privacy International director, in a letter to UK Information Commissioner Richard Thomas. "Is this the new legal guidance for supermarkets, banks and hotels?"
A spokesperson for the ICO said in response: "Individuals who have raised concerns with Google about their image being included - and who do not think they have received a satisfactory response - can complain to the ICO."
But Privacy International, which has registered concerns regarding Street View since May 2008, wants the ICO to take "immediate action" to prevent what it believes is a violation of the Data Protection Act.
Davis has demanded that the ICO consider how the technology has caused a " substantial threat" to some individuals, and that "the extent of intrusion into the homes of some complainants is unlawful".
One example he gave was of a woman who has been moving house for years to escape a violent former partner and the distress she felt when she identified herself outside her house on Street View.
Google's response to the complaint has been to reiterate the popularity of the tool, and that images that cause distress can be taken down.
"Of course, if anyone has concerns about the product or its images they can contact us and we look forward to hearing from them," a Google spokeswoman added.
Google has also hit out at Privacy International, declaring that the letter was an "entirely predictable publicity stunt by an organisation that is far from impartial when it comes to the issue of Google and privacy".
Relations between the two have been difficult in the past couple of years. Privacy International's first privacy ranking published in June 2007 gave Google the lowest ranking among the major companies it surveyed.
Google's response to the scoring, and to many subsequent privacy complaints made by Privacy International, has been to point to "a conflict of interest" arising from Microsoft's Casper Bowden being an advisory board member.
Davis said that he plans to seek legal advice after Google's latest accusation that the organisation is biased. "In no circumstances do we allow the impartiality of the organisation to be influenced," he said. "We will not stand by while our organisation is shot down."
Latest stories from Communications
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
V3 examines the key strengths and weaknesses of Samsung's latest iPhone killer
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
Business Objects Developer - VP - Banking My leading...
C++ Programmer/ Developer/Object Orientated/ Software...
Senior Java Design Developer Banking / J2EE...
Internet Solutions Architect - Hands-on Banking experience...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Google dictatorship should be banned !!!
The fact that google is taking pictures of streets and people and making it searchable worldwide and then claiming that can not any one walking in front of your house or seeing you can see you or the house shows that google is trying to defend its wrong action of data theft without any apparent regard to privacy, moral behavior.Its only motive is profit at any cost. That they have made tonnes of money should not let them do anything and get away with it. It is absolutely low standards that google can say that it will the remove the picture if you ask ; it is a pitiful argument. That they can not come with a good enough argument shows that its actions are not justified. google is counting on the fact that many people who are not technically savvy or the people who do not have internet access or do not know the inner details of web or simply do not have the time to check and search all these things will not complain and they can make money before anyone notices it. Who is google to make money off people's houses, properties without their consent and then come up with idiotic rationale. This is no different from thiefs (data or otherwise) defending their action because of their own profitability or selfish motives. Google should not be allowed to mug people in a sophisticat and get away with it. It is high time the public all over the world teach google a lesson that its own profit making moves regardless of people's consent or privacy will not be tolerated. Otherwise, google's right to do business may need to be taken away and its wrongly accumulated wealth may have to be distributed among the victims of privacy breach by google.The very same google or its partners may launch a business charging people money monthly to take these pictures or streetviews off the internet. Such unethical things should be stopped before they happen.The fact that google has become a monster data theft engine, spam engine is an example of how a company with pure profiteering motives without regard to privacy or people opinion or ethics can behave.This also shows that google may have reached a stage to grow in decent ways. Google has become synonymous to anti-privacy or data piracy. It is time for ethical companies to take over the web.
Posted by: global web monitor 04 Apr 2009
Google street view tool
Wasnt there a situation when only a few weeks ago, that a man had used "google earth" to look a church in the uk, and then proceeded to steal all the lead from that church! Is seems so much common sense in this day and age, with imfomation being available to everybody, that some should be kept back, this isnt hard to work out, the law of averages says that someone is goin to be compromised somewhere, that being the case, working on that premise, someone is not going to use this for good intention!!! Its not hard to work out!!! Too much information is a dangerous thing. ITS NOT HARD TO WORK OUT!!!!!!
Posted by: John Child 25 Mar 2009
Isn't the front of your house in the public domain?
I think my title says it all, the views on street view are all in the public domain, if someone is doing something in the street that they object to others seeing, then surely they should confine those actions to off-street areas. If someoen objects to a view of their house being availabl, then maybe they ought to erect some kind of barrier to stop the passing public from seeing it. What kind of people are these who are objecting to the perfectly public side of their lives being on view to people who would otherwise not see it. As a for instance, some disabled people have not got the ability to see ordinary streets, that others take for granted, so street view fills a gap for them. If on my travels I see something of interest, I welcome the ability to show it to my family when I get home. When I am visitong some new place, needing to find somewhere, the ability to look for landmarks on my journey will be a boon, rahter than the potentially dangerous slowing down and peering round for street names etc. I could go on, Street View is a good thing in general, and the objectors are in the minority, let's hope they astay that way.
Posted by: Alan Bradshaw 25 Mar 2009
Are you out of your mind?
We, normal people are very grateful to the people who make ?street view? available to us for FREE. Now we can roam around the world without leaving our computer. If someone is not comfortable getting their picture in street view you can just request Google to remove your picture. For a normal person like me, I don?t give a damn about it unless I am doing some public indecency. And moreover, Privacy International (PI) don't represent us. You only represent your own organization which happens to have the name ?Privacy International?. Tell me which numbers are larger, the people supporting ?PI? or the people who are using ?Street View? happily? In my opinion, the people at ?PI? are as useful as the people who cut their feet because it doesn?t fit the shoe.
Posted by: MK 25 Mar 2009
Idiots ...
It is such a crying shame that when there is a real need for a loud voice to protest the erosion of our privacy (mostly by our own Government) that the twits at Privacy International have gone after exactly the wrong target. There should be no issue with taking photographs in a public place and then displaying them on the web. That is what public means. I fear they will lose this argument (as they should) and thereby damage the entire cause of privacy in a digital age. With 'friends' like these there is no need for enemies.
Posted by: Ashley 25 Mar 2009
Why the fuss?
Most big towns and cities have CCTV and even webcams which can be accessed easily by pretty much anyone. And they are in real time where as these are just some photos taken most of which are a year old. If I went out and took a load of photos and put them on a site like flikr and blurred faces no one would care. Its just a big fuss for the sake of it really.
Posted by: Natalie 25 Mar 2009
Google Street
I agree with Privacy International. Google Street is a product which is being marketed world wide. The images were obtained without the individual's knowledge or consent. I certainly wouldn't want all my friends and family, and the rest of the world for that matter, to see me walking down the main street in my local town with my hand over my partner's buttocks. The legislating in this country protects the individuals right to privacy. Publishing a picture for all world to see, and then removing it if the individual complains, (after the damage is done) does not meet the spirit of that legislation. That would be like one of the Daiy Newspapers publishing a photograph of someone in an embarassing situation one day, and expecting the fact that they didn't print it again, to be the solution. Perhaps all the individuals concerned should band together and sue Google for invasion of privacy. That would get their attention!
Posted by: Alan Philps 25 Mar 2009