Google to p2pnet on Street View
p2pnet news view Advertising | P2P:- European privacy watchdogs have, “demanded that Google delete the original images behind its Street View service,” says The Register.
Gargoyle says it’ll comply, but only in the “long term”. Whatever that means.
Says the story »»»
Street View has raised privacy concerns wherever it has launched but the UK’s privacy regulator the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has said that Google’s privacy protections are good enough to protect people’s privacy.
A committee of all 27 EU member states’ privacy regulators, the Article 29 Working Party, has asked Google to ensure, though, that original images are destroyed once they have been used to create blurred images that the public can see.
On that, as I noted in my post, with respect to Canada, “Firms engaged in this kind of activity, ‘have to let citizens know that they are going to be photographing the streets of their city, when this will happen, why and how they can have their image removed if they don’t want it in a database,’ says the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, releasing Captured on Camera to help Canadians understand privacy issues surrounding street-level imaging applications such as Google StreetView and a similar product offered by Canpages. (html, pdf)
“Under Canadian privacy law you should know when your picture is being taken for commercial reasons, and what your image will be used for,” says the commissioner’s office.
As far as I’m concerned, Google’s Street View is a commercial project.
Tamara goes on »»»
When introducing Street View to Europe, Google undertook to automatically blur faces and vehicle number plates to protect the privacy of people photographed on the street.
It retains the unblurred originals, and says that these are vital for correcting errors. It has agreed, though, to delete those once they are no longer being used. [See the intro.]
Google Snoop-O-Rama SnoopMobile
Yesterday, “Huge advertising company Google figures it can go where it wants to go, do what it wants to do,” I said in Google SnoopMobile invades p2pnet turf, going on, “And that includes taking pictures of peoples’ houses for use in online advertising projects without bothering to ask if it’s OK with the owners.”
A while back, “The chances of Google employees showing up to take pictures of p2pnet’s palatial headquarters on the Republic of Vancouver Island aren’t high,” I posted.
But I was wrong. I live in a small, rural village in Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. And the Google Snoop-O-Rama SnoopMobile turned up there.
Many moons ago Gargle falsely and wrongly accused me of generating fake Adsense clicks and despite my efforts to find out exactly what I was supposed to have done, and how I was supposed to have done it, the company has never troubled to enlighten me. Nor am I alone.
However, within 24 hours, it was on my case about my GooMobile story.
“Hi Jon,” says Tamara in an email from Google’s Toronto office, asking me to, “correct one thing” in my post.
She quotes paragraph two, which says, “And that includes taking pictures of peoples’ houses for use in online advertising projects without bothering to ask if it’s OK with the owners.”
“Google Street View is not an online-advertising project, but rather a free feature of Google Maps and Google Earth which enables users to virtually explore and navigate a neighbourhood through panoramic street-level images,” says Tamara. “Would you be able to update the post on that point?”
Sorry, Tamara, I can’t oblige. As far as I’m concerned, your employer is a massive advertising agency and everything it does in some way impacts on that. And that includes Street View.
She goes on »»»
I’d also note that anyone can request the removal of an image they find inappropriate or objectionable; there’s a “Report a problem” link embedded right in every Street View panorama. This YouTube video has more info about requesting an image’s removal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7LtTH-pVUk. We also automatically blur identifiable faces and licence plates in every image.
In addition, on March 24 we notified Canadian media that we’d soon begin driving around Canada to capture imagery for Google Street View, and we maintain a bilingual press site with details. Today we also launched a bilingual website for Street View Canada which includes where we’re currently driving to capture imagery: maps.google.ca/streetview.
We’ve also been working with the federal and provincial Privacy Commissioners and had very positive discussions, and we’ll continue to work with them.
“Let me know if you have any questions!” – she finishes.
No way
No questions, Tamara, just this observation.
The time for Google to talk to people is before it starts snapping pix of their homes, not after.
Some people don’t mind Gogle using their homes online, and that’s cool. But I don’t like it, and had I been informed in advance, I would have said No Way.
But I wasn’t asked, or notified, and it seems I now have to Opt Out because I’d already been Opted In without ever having been consulted.
Says in a Reader’s Write to my story »»»
I’m waiting for a few big-time burglars to figure out that streetview is the perfect way to scope the houses they’re going to rob. I’m 99% sure that it’s going to happen.
If Google wanted to allow me to take a snapshot of my own house and post it on their site with an address, that’s fine. But it’s my property, my privacy, and potentially my safety at stake for their negligent practices.
I didn’t catch them on their way through my neighborhood, unfortunately. I know they were here — they have a picture of my house — but of course, I have no recourse at all for having the picture taken out of their database. If these giants want to keep enforcing imaginary property rights for themselves, why the hell do they keep violating those same rights for us? (Google can’t even use the excuse that they’re finding out what music we downloaded!)
‘I don’t like Google or anything it stands for’
Tamara, you’re probably a very nice person and I realise you’re only doing the job you’re paid to do.
So please don’t take this personally.
For myself, when Gloople first went online, I was all for it, and for Larry and Sergey with their much-touted Do No Evil philosophy.
But things changed — fast — and since then I, and lots of others, have blogged exhaustively about serious privacy (and other) problems with Google.
There’s no room here to go into detail. Suffice it to say that I don’t like Google or anything it stands for, and I don’t want anything of mine used by it in any way, shape or manner, or for any reason, commercial or otherwise.
Nor do I want to have to react to something it’s already done, and which involves me and/or mine, without my permission
Period.
Full stop.
End of story.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
The Register – Privacy watchdog growls – Google grudgingly complies, June 16, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
+1
June 17th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I agree Jon, stand fast on your rights, it seems Google never will. With all the nightmare privacy rights being violated by Google, it hurts most when it gets closer to home, and in this case, close enough for a burglar to pick a window with shrubs around it to conceal his activities.
thanks Google, the ONLY use for street view is for invasion of privacy and/or illicit endeavors…, all for advertising dollars.
another FAIL.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Good man. Keep it up.
Chas
June 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I like Google Street View. Don’t ruin it for everybody. kthxbai
June 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
google shills wil be out in force on this one
June 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Maybe google will want to send everyone who uses it a check every month. After all B/W isn’t fee and this is free and non-commercial
June 17th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Have to agree with Jon here, Tamara is likely a nice person, but Gargoyle is not a nice company anymore.
I dont use their search engine anymore, and like as not will cancel my e-mail with them!!
BTW Bob, good for you, shill or not you are entitled to your view! But dont ruin it for us either!
stw
June 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I have no problem with Street View myself.
In fact, it has been a very useful too when helping my locationally challenged
wife to find addresses that she needs to deliver medical supplies to in unfamiliar
neighborhoods. I personally don’t care if my home is on street view, or if my
picture inadverdantly shows up on it.
If a picture of my home shows up on an advertisement, shilling a product though, that’s
a different story.
Everyones mileage may vary of course, and I do agree that all should be able to decline to
be a part of it BEFORE the pictures are taken.
Making people opt-out after the fact is just plain sneaky.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I have never used Google street view. I don’t think I ever will want to. I’ve already seen enough where some of the earth views show people in the privacy of their backyards, within privacy fences, getting au natural tan, shown for any and everyone to see. If that’s not an invasion of privacy, I don’t know what is. This was long before privacy issues came up with street view.
Google has no business in my private life. Not on my street, not of my house, not in my life. Period!
I no longer will allow google the ability to add a cookie in my browser. I won’t use their toolbar, which I am sure feeds them info on search terms, and am considering giving up Firefox for the reason that you can’t get Firefox without it coming with Google toolbar preinstalled. They may love it but I personally hate it.
Google has changed a lot. The money factor I am sure is a driving force in that. Do no evil is becoming “we can do a little bit surely”, and I have a problem with that. Google is not bashful when it comes to their interests, as Jon has first hand experience in. When it comes to your and my interests like “I hate ads” and don’t want them, well it seems that opting out isn’t an option is it? The option is not to use them if you don’t want the ads and if that’s the way it is, I can live with it by changing browsers to one that only supports text. Hard to show you an image ad when your browser doesn’t allow it. Did I say, “I HATE ADS”?
June 17th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
we are willing to support downloading mp3’s for free for non commercial use without the riaas permission
yet are upset when someone uses picture taken outdoors in public for non commercial use. seems hypocritical
June 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I agree with Jon
Google should have to notify everyone prior and let them know what time frame they will be invading your street/town/city.
A nice letter in the mail would be preferred and maybe they could include a small sign or sticker you could put on your door that will tell Google to remove that house and property from street view.
I guess common curtsy is non-existent in large corporations these days.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
” A nice letter in the mail would be preferred and maybe they could include a small sign or sticker you could put on your door that will tell Google to remove that house and property from street view. ”
That seems fair enough, and not really that difficult.
If wealthy ass google claims that sending letters is much too expensive ( sound of violins ) than making
available for download and printing distinct opt-out signs so that home owners can do just what you suggest,
without costing anyone more than a few cents.
Perhaps Tamara, if she is REALLY the kind of person she pretends to by might suggest something like that,
but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
” I guess common curtsy(sic) is non-existent in large corporations these days. ”
It never did exist for the wealthy, ever.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I’m not so sure about this one.
What’s to stop anybody for any reason from photographing your home?
Sure Google makes ad dollars from this – but so can everybody, if they want to.
If your house is left alone, standing out in a public place where everybody can see it, then it’s up for grabs in any photo, as far as I am concerned.
Then again, I am protected from theft by poverty.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
” If your house is left alone, standing out in a public place where everybody can see it, then it’s up for grabs in any photo, as far as I am concerned. ”
In most states, taking such photos without consent is completely legal if the photo taken is obviously publicly
visible ( like OUTSIDE of a privacy fence ). The difference would be if that photo was used by an ad company
in an obvious ad hawking a product. Google street view is in kind of a grey area. Having my home show up in
a ReMax ad without my consent isn’t in a grey area. It’s a tough call, but as I said everyone should be able to
opt out BEFORE the photo is taken.
” Then again, I am protected from theft by poverty. ”
Sadly in the same boat brother
June 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
WTF?? “we are willing to support downloading mp3’s for free for non commercial use without the riaas permission
yet are upset when someone uses picture taken outdoors in public for non commercial use. seems hypocritical”
How exactly are these related??? And besides that, what if a non-corporate individual walked up on the sidewalk
in front of YOUR house while your outside, and snapped a few pics “just because”?? Wouldn’t like that too
well would ya??
stw
June 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“everyone should be able to
opt out BEFORE the photo is taken.”
If they had to get permission, then it would never happen due to the paperwork.
And we would never have the advantage of the service it provides.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
” what if a non-corporate individual walked up on the sidewalk
in front of YOUR house while your outside, and snapped a few pics “just because”?? Wouldn’t like that too
well would ya?? ”
It’s completely legal for someone to do that in my state.
As for this part ..
” we are willing to support downloading mp3’s for free for non commercial use without the riaas permission
yet are upset when someone uses picture taken outdoors in public for non commercial use. seems hypocritical ”
Troll methinks, and you got hooked.
Ignore it.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
” If they had to get permission, then it would never happen due to the paperwork.
And we would never have the advantage of the service it provides. ”
I really don’t think thats justification enough.
I have used the service, and I like it, but I got along
just fine without it before.
Too much paperwork doesn’t make ’sneaky’ ok.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
‘And we would never have the advantage of the service it provides.’
would you care to explain exactly WHAT advantage this service provides? what did people do prior to the privacy rape ’street-view’ came along?
I think they got along fine without the intrusion, imho.
stw
June 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I wrote a poem, I put the copyright symbol on it and then stuck it on my door.
When I spot my house on google I am going to sue them like the pirate bay was sued
Can I copyright my house? or use some strange patent law and then sue google for stealing it?
June 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“would you care to explain exactly WHAT advantage this service provides?”
I used it to look at the neighbourhood when I was deciding on whether to book a room in a hotel in a far-away place.
“Can I copyright my house?”
Some creations fall outside of copyright law. – architecture, sculptures are some of those as I recall.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
As I said above, “Some people don’t mind Gogle using their homes online, and that’s cool. But I don’t like it, and had I been informed in advance, I would have said No Way. But I wasn’t asked, or notified, and it seems I now have to Opt Out because I’d already been Opted In without ever having been consulted.”
If it’s not a problem for you, it’s not a problem for you, and that’s fine.
@ “upset when someone uses picture taken outdoors in public for non commercial use”
It’s for commercial use, whatever Gargoyle says.
Cheers!
June 17th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Stick to yer guns son. Dont let em git ya
June 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
After thinking about this, I don’t think anyone has a leg to stand on here.
I read the privacy complaint on privcom.gc.ca about the insurance company hiring a P.I. who was filming people not even involved in the investigation.
When an Innocent complained about herself and daughter being filmed, PrivCom took up the complaint.
The P.I. firm and/or Insurance cmpany more or less told the privacy commissioner where to go. End of story.
Now, boogle is a U.S. firm storing your B.C. family’s pic, house, whats on your house (ie. satellite maybe an illegal satellite dish!) and lic. plate over in texas (or somewhere).
k?
Stop for a minute and ask yourself this; if this Canadian insurance/P.I. firm will tell PrivCom where to shove their privacy clauses, do you think boogle will just bow down to what you, PrivCom or anyone else has to say?
They will (in a manner consistent with do no evil) tell PrivCom where and how to put their clause’s and findings.
I’m proud of our PrivCom, its openness, their accessibility, and their work in educating and informing people (plus more), BUT, I am starting to see PrivCom as being all bark and no bite, and easily pushed.
Maybe I’m wrong. But this is what I have been noticing.
Jon probably has more privacy rights is he took a plane trip to the E.U. and was filmed there than here in his own country.
What’s PrivCom going to do about it? Tell boogle to delete their data that’s on a US server some place? puh-lease.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
@ woof
I’m not really expecting Gargle to do anything. However, I have a voice and I’m using it.
Lots of voices would make lots of difference not only to this, but to all kinds of other concerns, such as the privacy and security issues Gogle is rigidly ignoring.
Cheers!
June 17th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Please don’t get me wrong. I think people should speak-up as well, and yur blog is a voice for many people.
I myself want an opt-in and not be automatically opted-in by this foreign company filimingg me, my kids, my home my lic plate, the car I drive, the technology on the roof of my house, my address, if I have a crack on my window that some local window shop will see and bug me about, the profiling of area’s or homes for commercial use or military maps
, on and on.
But what will PrivCom do about it? They already got blown off by a P.I. firm.
I don’t disagree with you.
PrivCom already pointed out many of the issues, yet boogle is going at it anyhow.
That’s all I’m trying to say. Maybe I don’t know what I’m saying?
And where is this bilingual website that shows where and when they filmed or will film?
June 18th, 2009 at 7:56 am
hehe, i have to agree with
“we are willing to support downloading mp3’s for free for non commercial use without the riaas permission
yet are upset when someone uses picture taken outdoors in public for non commercial use. seems hypocritical” guy,
Whats up with me having to ask the the creators of any movie, song or whatever before I download it? that never happend… and now we’re upset if someone takes a picture of our street?
I dont get the privacy issue, as long as it doesnt outline the door and has that nice google-maps bubble saying “this is where p2pnet lives. He downloads stuff”
And the last troll comment:
As long as its not the government taking these pictures to ensure we’re all “safe and sound”, I’m not worried.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Chris, what does privacy, and ones right to privacy have to do with copyright or file-sharing?
Don’t “blurr” the issue.
The only one trolling with a blurred point of view is you my friend.
Should I cross over into the states and start filming people and their things there? Maybe put up a notice on some obscure website that I’ll be there next week to start filming places in the states and put it all on a huge database?
June 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
“we are willing to support downloading mp3’s for free for non commercial use without the riaas permission
yet are upset when someone uses picture taken outdoors in public for non commercial use. seems hypocritical”
heck yea it does!
June 18th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
” Should I cross over into the states and start filming people and their things there? Maybe put up a notice on some obscure website that I’ll be there next week to start filming places in the states and put it all on a huge database? ”
In my state it is perfectly legal to do just that, as it is in most states in the US.
Come on over and try it, no one has the legal right to stop you.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I seem to recall reading a post (maybe it was here, I’m not sure) where some angry people chased the google street view car out of town. I guess that would count as an “opt out”.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Just wait til they start using one of these.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Camera-That-Can-See-Through-Walls-44429.shtml
June 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
lol
June 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Only other thing i have to say on this is…….
If the people posting on here about how Gargoyle is doing this for “non-commercial use”
truely believe that, I for one think you need to sue the doctor who gave you a lobotomy
when he was supposed to be taking out your apendix………..
YOU PEEPS ARE SCREWY!!