Street View is the project which allows Google users to see
photographs of any street in a surveyed area and even travel
through the city, frame by frame.
It has been controversial because of the privacy implications of
publishing images which inevitably contain people or private
property. A lawsuit was filed in the US earlier this year which
alleged that images on the site invaded one couple's privacy.
Europe has stricter privacy safeguards than the US which could
impact on the service once it has been put into operation.
Blog Google
Blogoscoped published images last week of cars with Google
logos and roof-mounted cameras in Rome and Milan, but no
confirmation was received from Google about the project at the time
of going to press.
Google global privacy counsel
Peter Fleischer said in a blog post last year that the company
was aware of the privacy implications of the Street View
service.
"We thought hard about how to design Street View so that the
service would respect the privacy of people who happen to be
walking down a public street at the random moment when we capture
an image," said Fleischer. "That's why we designed a simple process
for anyone to contact us and have their image removed."
Google has already admitted that it will have to change the way
that Street View operates in order to comply with EU privacy
laws.
"We've always said that Street View will respect local laws
wherever it is available and we recognize that other countries
strike a different balance between the concept of 'public spaces'
and individuals' right to privacy in those public spaces," said
Fleischer. "There's an important public policy debate in every
country around what privacy means in public spaces. That balance
will vary from country to country, and Street View will respect
it."
Fleischer said that for countries such as Canada and many in
Europe it will use technology to try to retain the service's
usefulness and keep it on the right side of privacy laws.
"Basically, Street View is going to try not to capture
'identifiable faces or identifiable license plates' in its versions
in places where the privacy laws probably wouldn’t allow them
(absent consent from the data subjects, which is logistically
impossible), in other words, in places like Canada and much of
Europe," he said.
"How would Street View try not to capture identifiable faces or
license plates? It might be a combination of blurring technology
and resolution. The quality of face-blurring technology has
certainly improved recently, but there are still some unsolved
limitations with it," he said.
"Lowering the quality of resolution of images is another
approach to try not to capture identifiable faces or license
plates. If the resolution is not great, it’s hard (or even
impossible) to identify them. Unfortunately, any such reduction in
resolution would of course also reduce the resolution of the things
we do want to show, such as buildings. So, it’s a difficult
trade-off," said Fleischer.
In the US Google has, since last summer, agreed to remove faces
or car number plates on request from the person whose face or
number plate is shown.
If Google were to start recording streets for the service in the
UK, "there would be privacy issues" if the image is of
sufficient quality to identify an individual, the
Information Commissioner's Office told OUT-LAW.COM.
"We urge those looking to use such technology to be mindful of
the fact that although they may be in a public place, not everyone
wishes their images to be captured," said an ICO statement.
The ICO also said that Street View should be sensitive to
situation-specific concerns. "We would ask those operating such
technology to do so responsibly to ensure images are not captured
in places requiring a certain amount of privacy – outside a school,
in someone’s garden, etc," it said.
The UK does not have a privacy law, but in recent years the law
of confidence and the European Convention on Human Rights,
translated into UK law as the Human Rights Act, have been used in
the courts to try to keep certain things private.
In the UK, data protection law allows the taking of photographs
in public places without the permission of people who will appear
in the photo, but that does not apply for photos for commercial
purposes. For those, subjects should be notified.
There is also a right to prevent the display of an image which
will cause substantial distress. This can be pre-emptive, meaning
that if you can identify yourself to Google and think you have been
photographed by the company you can request that the photograph
never be published if you can show that the publication will cause
you substantial distress.
Struan Robertson, editor of OUT-LAW.COM and a technology lawyer
with Pinsent Masons, said data protection laws would not be an
issue if individuals could not be identified.
"What Fleischer suggests is a good way of circumventing the Data
Protection Act and its demand for notification, which would
probably necessitate loudspeakers on the camera cars," he said.
"It's hard to imagine Google cars driving around and shouting
at pedestrians."
But Robertson also pointed to a recent ruling that took a
dim view of privacy rights on the streets of Britain.
Children's author JK Rowling last year failed to win a case
which hinged on the degree to which she and her children could
expect privacy on a public street. She was photographed by agency
Big Pictures walking in the street with her then 20 month old son
David.
The Sunday Express used the pictures and settled with Rowling,
but Big Pictures contested the case and last August succeeded in
having a judge throw the case out before a full trial could take
place.
"If a simple walk down the street qualifies for protection then
it is difficult to see what would not," said Mr Justice Patten in
the High Court. "For most people who are not public figures in the
sense of being politicians or the like, there will be virtually no
aspect of their life which cannot be characterised as private.
Similarly, even celebrities would be able to confine unauthorised
photography to the occasions on which they were at a concert, film
premiere or some similar occasion."
"I start with a strong predisposition to the view that routine
acts such as the visit to the shop or the ride on the bus should
not attract any reasonable expectation of privacy," he said. "It
seems to me inevitable that the boundaries of what any individual
can reasonably expect to remain confidential or private are
necessarily influenced by the fact that we live in an open society
with a free press. If harassment becomes an issue then it can and
should be dealt with specifically."
The ruling has been appealed.
Editor's note: Many thanks to Alessandro
Boca for letting us reproduce his photo of the Street View car,
taken in Milan.
