More like this
UK campaigners demand Google Street View closure
Google’s latest offering has led to many complaints and a formal demand to Britain’s information commissioner to take the service offline
The fallout from Google's launch of its Street View service in Britain continues, with privacy campaigners submitting a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and demanding that the service be temporarily taken offline.
Privacy International (PI) lodged its action against the internet search engine citing the "clear embarrassment and damage" the system was causing.
Before Google was able to roll out the UK version of the service, which attracted similar complaints in the US when it launched there in 2007, it had to assure information commissioner Richard Thomas that faces and car registration plates would be blurred. But since last week's British launch, PI claims it has been contacted by many people who have been clearly identified by the service.
The Pentagon banned Street View from publishing pictures of US military bases
Images that have caused concern include one of a woman who had moved to escape a violent partner who was subsequently recognised on Street View, and a photograph of two work colleagues captured in an apparently compromising position by Google's cameras. Embarrassing shots of people exiting sex shops or vomiting on the street have also appeared.
Google is putting up a robust defence, claiming that "the ICO has repeatedly made clear that it believes that in Street View the necessary safeguards are in place to protect people's privacy", But Simon Davies of PI says the service should be taken offline until an investigation is carried out. He says Google's claims that its face-recognition technology would only lead to a "few misses" was clearly a "gross underestimation".
The service has been dogged by privacy issues. The US Department of Homeland Security delayed the launch of the service for the Washington area to check that it wasn't identifying any security-sensitive 'targets' in the nation's capital, while the Pentagon banned Street View from publishing pictures of US military bases.
One man who need not worry about his privacy being disturbed is Google UK boss Dennis Woodside, whose home in Kensington, west London, has escaped the prying eye of the Google cars – because he lives in a private gated community.
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING:Ruaridh Nicoll, Guardian: Someone will be caught out soon, but this won't make Google's achievement any less. Our bad behaviour is not its responsibility. The revealing image is not new. Think of all those employees who called in sick only to be spotted on telly at Wimbledon. Even before photography, life was never entirely private. Samuel Pepys was busted making love on a north London common by a passer-by.
Ross Clark, Independent: If I were a burglar, I don't think I would use Google Street View. The images are not live – they were taken at some indeterminate time within the past year – and so provide no opportunity for the reconnaissance of a property. Moreover, Google keeps a permanent record of all searches performed upon it - a dead giveaway if you are revealed to have been homing in on Acacia Avenue a few days before houses there were burgled. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Well let's see some balance here. I find the objections to Street View pretty lame so far, all to do with some imagined privacy that doesn't exist, and to do with threats that are not created by Street View, nor exacerbated by it.
Film companies have been filming in public places including suburban streets since film was invented. TV companies do it on a daily basis, and with video/DVD recording, these can be saved by anyone. Maps give locations across the country in far more detail, and the state holds more information on us than anyone would be comfortable with.
Uses of Street View are legion, tourism is just one; planning on renting or buying a house? - look round the neighbourhood first; planning a short break in a city? - have a look at the area and local attractions; thinking of moving to an area? - check out the neighbourhood, have a look at the school, see where the local parks are etc.
Anyone walking, cycling or driving round can see all that Street View shows, so what's the problem? Cloning of licence plates? Anyone wishing to do this can [and does] do it already without the help of Google. People's faces aren't blurred out in real life any more than number plates. Nothing shown on Street View is not visible more clearly in real life. It is paranoid to think this is any kind of threat, so either the objectors are paranoiacs, or they just want something to moan about, I suspect the latter in most cases. It's already in place in the US and Europe [as I understand] but trust the British to make a song and dance about it. Bah humbug! It's the same mealy-mouthed objection we get to wind farms, which is why we lag behind most of Europe in their development. What happened to this country that we have become a nation of moaners, whingers and anti-progress whiners.
I agree with fruitbat. Just because we have the technology to snoop and pry, doesn't mean we are justified in doing so. Moreover, the claim that this helps tourism is somewhat dubious. Fair enough, you can view famous streets/places etc, but as the article points out, this is already available to do, in a less prying way, on the internet and through other media. And I fail to see how suburban streets and buildings, (e.g. my own house,) being on the internet is going to boost tourism. Who really is going to visit some non-descript, unspectacular street on the outskirts of a main city? It's laughable. Obviously you couldn't have just famous places on Google maps - people live near them too, and you can't apply double standards - but I'm just pointing out that the tourism justification has limited value.
Aside from pure nosiness, what real justification is there for this level of intrusion?
Google tell us it aids tourism, and this is why it covers all major towns and cities, but all major tourist areas can be found on the web already and far less intrusively for the residents.
Faces I have seen have been blurred, but minimally - it doesn't disguise a person at all. Also, on the two areas I looked at, one area does have number plates covered (as Google promises) but on the second they were all clearly visible: whether for privacy's sake or for the cloning of plates this is unacceptable and isn't what was assured.
Where curtains are open you can see into houses - and so see belongings - you can see which have the least security, the easiest access, etc etc.......
Although many love this, they do so because they can look at homes and streets, not for any useful purpose that can't be satisfied less intrusively by other means - an impressive achievement by Google, but just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.