Google Canada Street View faces and plates
p2pnet news view Advertising | P2P:- Google has been taking heavy fire from all around the world, and not just from people.
Governments, too, are complaining because all-too-many of Gargoyle’s Street View Snoop-O-Rama images which, according to the company, are blurred by “state-of-the-art technology,” are easily recognizable.
As p2pnet posted yesterday, Canada is the latest country to become yet another advertising prop.
Gogle calls it a ’service’. And it is.
For Groogle.
The pic on the right shows someoneoutside Concordia University in Montréal telling Gogle what he thinks of Street View.
Below are a bunch of other pix from Quebec, carefully compiled by Marc. And they’re not the only ones.
We’ve done Google’s job for it, blurring faces and licences.
You’re welcome, Google.
But the plates and faces are all clearly visible in the originals.
And, obviously, to anyone who wants to follow Marc’s example.
He found a similar results when he cruised Gargle street views in Switzerland.
Also see UPDATE Google Street View ‘panned’ in BC
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
p2pnet – Google Street View online in Canada, October 8, 2009
cruised Gargle street views – Google Steet View at Swiss abortion clinics, September 22, 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 11:47 am
This is one of those places where I disagree with the author. I consider Google Street View to be a great service, and even though it has only been available in Ottawa for a short time I have made use of it a few times.
I think people have confused privacy and anonymity, and do not feel it is a problem at all to have people (or license plates) show up in the images. These are public places, and places that have many other cameras (not offering any valuable services to us in return) all over the place.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
we need to sick our privacy commissioner on google, street view is the most dangerous thing any company has ever came up with.
it has serious privacy problems and in my opinion should be taken offline
October 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
@Russel
What do you think of the swiss abortion clinics and the people and plates in front of them, or entering them?
Am I confusing privacy?
October 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@ Russell:
For me this is as much a question of permissions as privacy, although privacy is also a major factor.
Whatever Google may say, Street Views is another ‘product’.
“You think it’s wront [sic] that your picture was taken in public without your permission and yet you regularly still use photos with people in the background, even though you don’t have their written permission to do so,” says someone in another Reader’s Write. “Why is it alright for you to use people’s photos without permission? What makes you exempt from the rule you’ve been pushing for Google, ever since the first Street View Article?
“Apparently it’s one of those rules that only applies to others. Or are you prepared to furnish written consent forms from everyone who has ever appeared in a photo on this site?”
I answered, “I didn’t say anything about my picture being taken in public without my permission. I’m complaining in very general terms about Gargle publicly displaying for commercial purposes millions of images it took without asking first.
“You can come and take my picture any time you like, no worries. But if you, as a commercial company, are then going to use it as a draw to promote ‘product,’ you need to get my permission first.”
Yes, I use pix in graphics to support stories, but the context is entirely different, and hundreds of thousands, and probably millions, of other sites and web pages do exactly the same. Nor am I claiming to be performing a ’service’.
You have no problem with Google coopting people and properties without asking first, Russell, but I do.
But I think it’s great we can differ.
Cheers!
October 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Google street view is FUN!
October 9th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
They have a “copyright google” on the pic of my house. I take very strong offense to that.
Also, Russel in some pictures of my neighbors houses, they caught one doing renovations w/o a permit (I know they had no permit) and the reno is very visible for the pics.
In another they caught my neighbor with a tempo still up. That is illegal where we are for the time of year.
In these two cases I am very very tempted to make complaints to the city and provide the pictures from google as evidence just to push the issue that this is private and then tell me neighbors to bring it up with the privacy commissioner. (only to show the implications).
Now someone who is bitter or mad at someone can also use this to do the same. Which will happen.
These are all private issue caught by google that can be used against people.
How is privacy not implicated in anyway Russel?
October 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Actually, If i’m not mistaken, Russle used to post some stories here.
Maybe Russel would like to tackle the issues presented ion a story presenting his side?
October 10th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“What do you think of the swiss abortion clinics and the people and plates in front of them, or entering them?”
What measures exist to ensure that people walking by these abortion clinics can’t see any of the people or license plates in front of them or entering them?
“Also, Russel in some pictures of my neighbors houses, they caught one doing renovations w/o a permit (I know they had no permit) and the reno is very visible for the pics.
In another they caught my neighbor with a tempo still up. That is illegal where we are for the time of year.”
So you’re saying that Google has some new form of X-ray technology that allows them to see through the huge fences your neighbors erected to hide their illegal activities? They DID put up fences to hide what they were doing, right? I mean it’s not like you had any idea any of this was taking place before you saw it on Street View, right?
“Now someone who is bitter or mad at someone can also use this to do the same. Which will happen.”
Thank goodness that there are strict safeguards in place to ensure that people can’t just walk by those houses and see these things happening with their own eyes!
What do they have, an electronic perception filter, that fools both the human eye and consumer-level cameras? Wow, Google must have have some high-tech cameras if they’re able to get past measures like those to take photos of things that nobody else can see!
October 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
1. Broadcasting the comings and going in an abortion clinic is very different than someone walking or driving down the street to go to work. Did they get the 3 women permission in the photo’s above? Did they get the permission of the plates on display from the owners of the car? This is required, contrary to what you might want to believe, or make others think..
2. Not everyone has a fence around their house. In addition to this, due to the height of the camera, there has already been complaints of google peering over fences and into yards. No x-ray required. But now this is captured for eternity. City could go back on them should there be a complaint. Same with the guy with the tempo, which is still up and has never been taken down. So contrary to what you are trying to turn into a make-believe fairy-tale, this is indeed the fact of the matters at hand.
I suggest you read the privacy laws, as applicable in your Prov (states already gave them up). Then go read the applicable privacy laws in other prov’s. They aren’t the same in case you are not aware (and it’s clear you are not aware).
After you educate yourself, feel free to troll and cite the relevant sections when looking at the pictures found on google (and which stay there for eternity).
October 13th, 2009 at 5:04 am
“1. Broadcasting the comings and going in an abortion clinic is very different than someone walking or driving down the street to go to work. Did they get the 3 women permission in the photo’s above? Did they get the permission of the plates on display from the owners of the car? This is required, contrary to what you might want to believe, or make others think..”
You do understand the difference between a single, still photo and a real-time live video feed, right?
“2. Not everyone has a fence around their house. In addition to this, due to the height of the camera, there has already been complaints of google peering over fences and into yards. No x-ray required.”
Yes, because it’s not like the drivers in delivery trucks, moving vans and even large SUVs can see over those same fances…
“But now this is captured for eternity. City could go back on them should there be a complaint. Same with the guy with the tempo, which is still up and has never been taken down. So contrary to what you are trying to turn into a make-believe fairy-tale, this is indeed the fact of the matters at hand.”
I have no idea what a “tempo” is (I tried looking it up but just found references to speed and Ford cars), but your argument seems to be that Street View is bad, partially because it catches people breaking the law.
“I suggest you read the privacy laws, as applicable in your Prov (states already gave them up). Then go read the applicable privacy laws in other prov’s. They aren’t the same in case you are not aware (and it’s clear you are not aware).
After you educate yourself, feel free to troll and cite the relevant sections when looking at the pictures found on google (and which stay there for eternity).”
I’m not Canadian. However, I have to wonder why, if these privacy laws are so strict, how is it that Canadian news shows are able to break them on a regular basis? For example;
Erin O’Halloran from CTV News giving a live report to Canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWRQinerX-o#
There are dozens of people in the background, several cars are shown, and not a single face or license plate if blurred. Do you seriously expect me to believe that there were people just off-camera going around with clipboards, asking everyone who might have appeared in the shot to sign a permission slip? What about when they do live weather updates from a busy street and dozens of people walk and drive by? Do they stop every single one of them and ask their permission to show them in the broadcast? How about footage of professional sports, does everyone who attends a game sign a form giving blanket permission to be filmed and those images used in the news, in the paper, etc?
As I’ve explained before, having Google ask for permission from each and every person they catch on camera, or from the owner of every house they photograph would slow the pace to such a crawl that it would take years just to do one city. By the times they actually finished, all the photos would be hopelessly out of date. Everyone keeps saying that it would be fine if they’d just ask permission first, but when asked how that would be possible, all I get in return are “That’s their problem.”
Try this; Knock on every door on your street and try and get every one of them to just give you their names. Don’t ask them for anything else. Now imagine trying to do that for entire cities. Having to get permission ahead of time makes the entire project completely impractical.
So what you and everyone else are asking for is that Google kill Street View. Which, in my opinion, would be an incredible loss. I’ve used it many times to scout an unfamiliar area before going there. Just the other day, I used it to find the exact location of a business that a friend had heard was looking for help. Because I was able to show him the exact area, he knew exactly where it was. A few months ago, a friend and I were driving down some rural back roads when we passed a house with a pickup truck for sale. We didn’t have time to stop, but my friend wanted to go back later and look at it. Unfortunately neither of us remembered exactly where it was. We knew the general area, but couldn’t find the exactly street. I used Street View to virtually explore the extire area, marking the streets off on the map as I went, until I finally found the street I was looking for. I then printed a map showing where it was and we were able to go back there, My friend didn’t end up buying the truck, but at least he was able to look at it. In another example, A woman came over to visit one of the people renting a room from me. She had followed them here and was nervous about going home from an unfamiliar area. I used Google Maps and Street View to show her how easy it was to get back to an area that she knew. She said it really helped to be able to actually see what the streets and turns would look like so that the route would be familiar to her.
I know other people who have done similar things. You want to kill this simply because pictures taken on public streets may occasionally catch people breaking the law, or embarass them?
I suppose you campaigned against internet search engines too. “Before search engines, only people who knew about my page could visit it, but now everyone who searches for “Guys in assless chaps” will know what I’m into!!! It’s invading my privacy!!!”
October 13th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Yawn.
Cheers!
October 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Actually in regards to this part you said:
“I’m not Canadian. However, I have to wonder why, if these privacy laws are so strict, how is it that Canadian news shows are able to break them on a regular basis? For example;”
“There are dozens of people in the background, several cars are shown”
In Quebec, where the above pictures are taken, it is against the privacy laws. They have to get each persons permission to put their faces etc on TV. In Ontario and the rest of Canada it isn’t.
Like I said, go educate yourself before you come out with dumbass comments.