Google Street View Is Invasion Of Privacy... But The BBC Showing Everyone At The Royal Wedding?
from the double-standards dept
We've been somewhat mystified about the complaints people have about images of people on Google Street View. Google is now "blurring" people to help deal with the issue, but it seems pretty silly, really. You're out in public. Someone can randomly take your photo. Of course, the backlash against Google Street View has been particularly harsh throughout Europe, where people insist it's a massive affront to their privacy. And yet... Glyn Moody points us to a blog post comparing the reaction to Street View to the reaction to the BBC putting up a high-def image of crowds at the Royal Wedding, and asking people if they can spot themselves.This raises an interesting question on privacy and balance.It certainly seems like a double standard. Is there something different about this being an "event"? I can't see how that makes much of a difference, really. Is there something about it being a "US" company vs. a UK organization? Or do people just not really think through these things until someone freaks out and screams "privacy violation!"?
Google decided to blur the faces of ordinary people going about their ordinary activities caught on Street View.
The BBC have decided, where events like the Royal Wedding are concerned, it's fine to have high definition street shots showing the faces of ordinary people in the crowd; not to mention police officers, armed forces and - presumably - under-cover crowd security officers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: photographs, privacy, royal wedding, street view, uk
Companies: bbc, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's been going on for decades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dont make sense, you will confuse them
But of course you are totally correct.
But it will be beyond most here to understand that difference, the difference between being a willing partcipent or having someone drive down your street in a car with tinted windows sneaking snapshots of you, or your kids, or your visitors, or your car rego.
And showing off the all the world what kind of lifestyle you live to see if it would be worthwile to rob your place.
Or to be a target of directed advertising, if someone should think your house needs a new paint job, or its roof fixed, or you simply need to be scammed.
As well, Google does not do ANYTHING unless they can made money from it, that applies to street view just as much as anything else.
It's information, and google takes your information and turns it into profit.
That profit comes from EVERYONE, because you pay more for the products you buy, because those companies PAY Google, and pass that cost onto you. (and me).
Which really sucks if you do not use or like Goolag, and if you never use any of their products or services.
(but I still have to pay for them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dont make sense, you will confuse them
Also, why target Google? Should it be illegal to take a picture that accidentally captures the image of a person in it? What about intentionally taking someone's picture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the Google thing, it was dumb in the first place. It might have been nice if they'd had a process where you could spot yourself and apply to be taken out (likely that'd be covered by the UK Data Protection Act) but a blanket "But what about my privacy standing here in full view" scrape seemed a bit of a stretch at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypothetically speaking that is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't see the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't see the difference?
It's a totally different story for google street car. You're living your life under the assumption you're not being filmed or photographed - a completely different situation. In this case, I'd be upset if I found my face on google street view.
All that said BBC should have thought this through a bit more. The image is cool - I love these gigapixel+ images, but there are hundreds of people there, and some are bound to be upset about their face being on the internet for millions to see - I mean look at some of the faces people are making :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't see the difference?
That's a stretch. Once you step out in public or open your curtains, you are not entitled to any privacy. Besides, isn't the UK the place with all those government CCTV cameras?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can't see the difference?
Actually, in Europe, you are. At least as far as the law is concerned - there's plenty of case law from the ECrHR on it (I think Peck v UK is one of the main ones). It is perfectly possible to have an "expectation of privacy" while in public.
And that is probably the difference between what the BBC have done, and what Google did. When you are going about your daily life, you do not expect to have your picture taken, in reasonable detail, and posted for all to see on the Internet. When you are attending a twice*-in-a-lifetime event, as part of a huge crowd, where there are hundreds, if not thousands of cameras present, pointing in all directions, including large chunks of the media, I think there is less of an expectation of privacy.
There is also an element of consent; i.e. turning up at such a high-profile event, rather than having the camera come to you.
The CCTV comparison is slightly misleading; London may have quite a few cameras - probably not as many as some people might think - but most are privately owned, and directed at private property (the exception being the Underground). In any case, the part in bold above is also important; images gathered by a CCTV system must comply with the Data Protection Act; i.e. be stored securely, not be displayed to the public and so on. This is significantly different from what Google (and the BBC) did, in making the images available.
Do I think it is hypocritical of the UK media and politicians to be slagging off Google and ignoring the BBC? Yes. But it wouldn't be the first time...
* Depending on divorce rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can't see the difference?
Yup, I believe the statistic is in London you're caught on camera around 300 times a day. We have more CCTV cameras per capita than any nation on earth. Indeed I seem to remember we have about 4 x the TOTAL number of cameras of you lot in the US or some similarly ludicrous number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't see the difference?
Then that is YOUR mistake. Big brother is watching, whether you're paranoid or not. Traffic camera's could catch your face at any moment. Any building's security camera's could do the same. If you assume you're not being photographed in public, then you're an ass.
If your trash is fair game to the public as soon as you put it out on the curb, then the minute you step out on the curb yourself, you shouldn't expect any level of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can't see the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference is easy to spot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference is easy to spot
What power?
Seriously, the BBC is not in competition with Google, they are not even allowed to show a profit on anything they do.
If I go to an event, I expect to be seen in public.
Walking down an ordinary road, I get uncomfortable if anyone even looks at me too long - suddenly appearing on street view for the entire planet to see can be too much for some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But while walking down a street one does not expect to have their photo taken and there is no way anyone can do anything about it.
So yes, there is a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's recording what is easily viewed on public streets (or that is the intent despite them driving up a private driveway a couple times).
It's in the PUBLIC and should be fair game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And no, I don't consider the Windsors to be special, why do you ask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expectations wise... (for Turbo and el_porko) when you step out into the streets - I'll bet you anything there are always plenty of street/tourist/amateur photographers out there, and you can expect to be pictured at any time. Nobody would come to every single person on the street and warn them about pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thinking process
Yes, they do think these things through. They think:
Step 1: Find way to make profitable, litigatable complaint
Step 2: Call Lawyer
Step 3: ? ? ? (We'll figure it out along the way)
Step 4: Profit
For the politicians the reasoning is slightly different, but similar. They think:
Step 1: Discover something that people might get worked up over
Step 2: Call a press conference and get people worked up
Step 3: ? ? ? (We'll figure out something to do about it)
Step 4: Win elections
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interpretation
So you're back to "in public = no privacy", seems pretty straightforward to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy
Human beings want to be a part of something, and want to feel they are protected. If someone points out that they are being violated (even if it's NOT really a violation) people WANT to believe the person trying to protect them. It's how pedophiles pray on the innocent.
People will continue to scream for more privacy, more privacy, "You're violating my privacy!" as long as courts and media and whoever else will listen. Are there genuine concerns? Possibly. Is it mostly for show and an attempt to seem more important than one is and trying to protect people from something they don't actually need to be protected from? More likely.
People love to bring up the argument that if you let them do then they will naturally progress to . I personally find it hard to believe the nativity of this argument but then find it sad and disconcerting that such a thought even comes up. Either in the minds of the people assuming such things happen or a government entity wishing to impose it.
In the end, Google Street View, if you can catch me on the sidewalk either eating a hot dog or propositioning a prostitute then congratulations! Either case, I really don't care. When Google Street view photographs me sleeping in my bedroom, then we'll have words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy (edit)
People love to bring up the argument that if you let them do "Insert any random act of perceived privacy violation that is truly inconsequential (like google street view) " then they will naturally progress to "some form of privacy violation that involves being invaded in ones home". I personally find it hard to believe the nativity of this argument but then find it sad and disconcerting that such a thought even comes up. Either in the minds of the people assuming such things happen or a government entity wishing to impose it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the Standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the Standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the Standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic might help, but probably won't.
Public =/= Private
Private =/= Public (listed twice for those that might be confused)
Being in Public == No privacy (expected, given, or assumed)
Being in private == Privacy (should be expected, given, and assumed)
This assume the knowledge that public is any location past your front door, past the "private road" you live or work on, or anything outdoors not surrounded by a fence.
I'm sure if I've forgotten something, someone will correct me, but hopefully the idea is strong enough to come across.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.dark-circuit.com/random/details.php?image_id=871
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like Google should have done with the millions of homeowners it invaded the privacy of!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's important to note...
If people had been pulling a sickie to be there and their boss saw them on the beeb, the story would be completely different.
My mate and I camped in the street through the night till about noon for LiveAid concert tickets. As the doors opened, the press were there, and my mate's picture made the front page of the evening news (sold at the exit of our large employer's car park as people leave). Needless to say he was supposed to be off sick and his boss saw him in the paper...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Street View Does Not Invade Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]