Google Street View ‘panned’ in BC
p2pnet news view Advertising | P2P:- Québec supposedly has stiffer privacy laws than other Canadian provinces and it’ll be interesting to see how quickly, or even if, local authorities pick up on Google Street View indiscretions, there.
And while we wait, “I was checking out PrivCom and came across an open letter to Boogle from the Privacy Commissioner regarding the company’s proposed retention plan for images collected for its StreetView application,” says Marc, who’s been diligently cruising Google’s virtual highways and byways.
He also found the two photos on the right snapped by a Gargle SnoopMobile close to the federal privacy commission offices.
The licence plate and the man’s face are clearly visible. We blanked them out.
“Dear Mr. Glick,” says the letter, posted on the PrivCom page.
Glick is Gargle’s Canada Street View point man.
The letter goes on »»»
Re: Google StreetView
We are writing in light of the presentation and consultation provided by you to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPCC) on August 5, 2009, in which you outlined Google`s proposed retention plan for images collected for its StreetView application. We appreciated having the opportunity to hear your proposal and are of the view that we now have a clear understanding of your plans for the retention of images.
As we understand it, Google is proposing to retain images for a maximum period of one year after publication, after which time, the images will be permanently blurred. You stated that this process of permanently blurring images is non-reversable. In previous discussions, Google had not provided a clear timeline around the issue of retention and we are pleased that Google has taken steps to meet this important requirement under Canada`s private-sector privacy legislation.
Your presentation provided a clearer picture of the rationale for retaining unblurred images. We understand that the blurring technology needs to be perfected as false positives (where images that are not faces or licence plates are blurred) may obscure certain data needed for Google`s mapping services.
On the whole, the retention period presented to us appears reasonable, given the business purposes, provided Google is meeting its obligations under Canada`s private-sector privacy legislation. As you know, our concerns in this regard have been outlined in previous correspondence and meetings, and in the document, Captured on Camera Street-level imaging technology, the Internet and you.
In addition to the retention schedule that you are proposing, you currently use blurring technology, which you continue to improve, and you have mechanisms to allow the images to be blocked or taken down.
We have also stated that the unblurred images must be protected with appropriate security measures. In Google`s appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI), you indicated that the images are securely protected.
We would again highlight the need for knowledge and consent you must let citizens know that they are going to be photographed, when, why, and how they can have their image removed. We would also encourage you to be sensitive about the areas you choose. We note that in your company`s appearance before the ETHI Committee, you committed to contacting community organizations prior to the launch of StreetView in Canada to notify them of the blurring capability as well as the process for having images removed, in case they wish to explore that option. We appreciate your undertaking to do so.
During your recent presentation to the OPCC, you mentioned that it may be possible to reduce the retention period at some point. This is encouraging news. We would like to have an undertaking from you that we would be able to meet with you at the end of the one-year period to review progress on the permanent blurring process and on any additional improvements that could be made.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your ongoing cooperation with our Offices and for your efforts to bring Google StreetView into compliance with Canada`s private-sector privacy legislation.
It’s signed by federal Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart, and provincial commissioners Frank Work (Alberta), Jacques Saint-Laurent (Quebec), and David Loukidelis (British Columbia).
On the question of retention, “a few things jump out at me,” says Marc, adding »»»
A) Keep in mind that people in the EU who complained were told the originals are being kept for as long as google deems fit. This is contrary to what is found in the open letter.
B) How is the Privacy Commiss going to verify this? Do they have auditing powers in Boogle USA to verify compliance?
C) if I make a complaint and get a picture removed, how would PrivCom verify compliance that it`s off their secured servers? If a picture is removed do they still keep it and just blurr it after 1-year, even though I asked for it to be gone? Is compliance measured via Googles good word?
D) If they made software to blurr, and they know the algorithms to blurr, it seems like an easy case of reverse engineering to unblurr images. Non-reversible? Are they sure about that?
E) Retentions: see A & B
‘You’d recognize yourself’
As we said earlier, it’ll be interesting to see how Québec views Street Views, but Loukidelis is patently in no doubt.
“Within hours of its launch,” Loukidelis said he’d be contacting Google, “over early reports of adults and children being clearly identifiable in Street View for Vancouver and his own concern over the area outside the Hotel Vancouver, where he said, ‘certainly if you were the person in the picture you’d recognize yourself’,” referring to a pic published by the Vancouver Sun next to the story.
The clip is on the right is our blow-up from the photo.
“Google says it has consulted with the RCMP, privacy commissioners and other community organizations and people can request images be blocked,” says the story, quoting spokeswoman Wendy Rozeluk as stating:
When we`re driving through public streets, anything you would see from a public street you would see on Google Maps. That said, we have reached out not only to the RCMP, but to different shelters, privacy commissioners and people in the education community.
They can decide if and when they would like something removed.
They can decide, eh?
Privacy considerations aside, what was Google doing putting the pictures up without their permission in the first place?
Stay tuned.
(Cheers, Marc)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Street View indiscretions – Google Canada Street View faces and plates, October 9, 2009
diligently cruising Google Steet View at Swiss abortion clinics, September 22, 2009
Vancouver Sun – B.C. privacy head pans Google`s Street View, October 6, 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.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Google should put it’s money where it’s mouth is. For each unblurred thing/person that should be blurred found via p2pnet, they should give 1$.
We’ll be rich very fast (we rich to me may not be rich to boogle).
October 9th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
The Privacy ommissioner has kind of pissed me off (a lot).
Not only have they allowed google to copyright my fucking house, car and my face, they do fuck all about all the unblurred pics n Quebec and Ontario.
PrivCom is losing my support (and like) more and more everyday.
Ms Strondick is two-faced.
October 10th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“”When weâre driving through public streets, anything you would see from a public street you would see on Google Maps.”"
“When we’re on Google Maps, anything you would see from a public street, you would see while driving through public streets.”
(fixed)