Jump to content

Google street view of Sheffield

Recommended Posts

Does a picture of my house on this database make me a Data Subject under the DPA? Or does that not apply as Google is not a UK company?

 

Your house is a data subject?! Why not write to Google and ask them if it's a data subject? I suspect they'll reply stating that they can't communicate with you as you're not the subject, and ask your house to write in instead. Which seeing as your house is not a human being will prove pretty difficult...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I expect Google stores all our browsings against IP address. So how do I get a list of all the people who have viewed my house? Maybe that would contravene the Data Protection Act?!

 

Does a picture of my house on this database make me a Data Subject under the DPA? Or does that not apply as Google is not a UK company?

 

Google cant see users IP addresses as they are all autonomous. So they will be unable to provide you with something they dont have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well perhaps because Google "Doesn't Do Evil", everything it does is right?

 

I can see a case for commercial businesses being on here, but my house?

 

Here's another view:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/610260/should-we-be-worried-about-google-street-view

 

If I wanted to put a photo of your house on the internet, I would ask you first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Completely. They raise a couple of valid points (such as the woman escaping a violent partner) but I don't think this justifies shutting down a system that shows a static scene already 9 months out of date. I think that is the crux of the argument - it's static. If we could view lives feeds from anywhere in the country then I'd agree that it would be a little too intrusive. But this isn't happening so why are the privacy lot up in arms? Next they'll be banning us from walking down a street and recalling what we saw 9 months on... :loopy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well perhaps because Google "Doesn't Do Evil", everything it does is right?

 

I can see a case for commercial businesses being on here, but my house?

 

Here's another view:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/610260/should-we-be-worried-about-google-street-view

 

If I wanted to put a photo of your house on the internet, I would ask you first.

 

The author proclaims to work in the technology sector. More he's a journalist reporting on what people who work in the technology sector do. He spoils his paranoid rant further by using a statistic - "98 per cent of those homes and residential streets that have made it into the Street View service have been uploaded without the people who live in the houses pictures ever likely to find out." A meaningless statistic plucked from thin air. Has he carried out impact analysis to assess how many people are likely to find out their house is online? Of course not - but a statistic must be used by the paranoid to strenghten their argument. Utter rubbish.

 

I work in IT and have never heard of that website. And from a quick look at the featured articles, I don't think I would be reading it in the near future. Ironic that the author uses the word Luddite, given the tone of their content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many people against having their house picture online via Google would happily let an estate agent put the same picture online when selling? Same with Autotrader and the selling of a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how many people against having their house picture online via Google would happily let an estate agent put the same picture online when selling? Same with Autotrader and the selling of a car.

 

but surely that would be with their consent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that is the crux of the argument - it's static. If we could view lives feeds from anywhere in the country then I'd agree that it would be a little too intrusive. But this isn't happening so why are the privacy lot up in arms? Next they'll be banning us from walking down a street and recalling what we saw 9 months on... :loopy:
You make an interesting point but you cannot blame people for remembering things. Bear in mind people seldom remember things correctly.

The difference between you and I remembering something from out point of view (literally) and Google Street View is that GSV takes an exact photography of a location.

 

Compare Street View and History book, look at the photos of some butcher's on some British street in 1890, the butcher will be posing in front of his shop, he consented. Google Street View arbitrarily took systematic photographs of streets in these 25 cities (they didn't both shooting down South Street Park which is a shame as there would have been views of ugly towers being built). This is unforgiving in the way that no one can avoid it. People driving, doing something have been photographed without their knowledge. Yes it is a useful tool, yes it is terribly done with inverted scrolling and the quality is debated and yes nearly the entire of Sheffield was photograph without people's consent.

 

The author of that article on this unknown B rated It website makes a point. People may not want to be present on some system imposed by a private company.

 

Some posters cite the Data Protection Act. Google doesn't sell the product but it does make money from it by placing adverts on it so it does, strictly speaking have to adhere to the DPA as it is a commercial entity and even if we find people who complain laughable, they have a valid point and genuine legal right to do so, it is beyond just being picky, the DPA is there to tell Google they shouldn't really be doing Street View.

I wonder how many people against having their house picture online via Google would happily let an estate agent put the same picture online when selling? Same with Autotrader and the selling of a car.
As I've said above, the difference between an estate agent and Google is that you volunteer a photograph to the estate agent, Google did not ask anyone. I can see the inside of my house on Street View and whilst someone who walks by can look inside, Google Street View is more a peeping tom who is stalker or that loser on the other side of the street who stares inside my bedroom on the first floor. There are not even subtle nuances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right in that it can't be avoided, but you can object to your picture and request that it is removed. However, I feel it comes back to the fact that if you are walking down a street then you are in a public place and can be seen by anyone who is passing, not to mention CCTV on both households and commercial premises. Having perhaps three or four photos taken which then have your face blurred before being publised at a date many months in the future with no definite date/time stamp is hardly a threat to people's civil liberties.

 

With regards to the DPA... I feel that as the DPA stands at the moment you are technically correct, and this should probably be found to be breaching it. However, whilst I fully support the DPA as a whole, I think some consideration needs to be given to images from public places such as those displayed on Street View. In it's most basic guise, the DPA exists to protect people from having their identities (in terms of names, DOB, address etc) mis-used - be it lost, stored for no reason or illegally sold etc... I don't think Street View is doing any of these things directly, nor under the general "flavour" of the DPA is it stepping out of line.

 

Whilst on the subject of the DPA and images. Imagine I'm a shallow minded thug and decide I'm going to vent my physical rage by going to London during the G20 and randomly attack people in suits and deface war memorials and corporate head quarters under the banner of "anti-captialism". I am highly likely to be phtographed and if I'm brave enough to not cover my face, see my photo on the front page of a broadsheet. Despite not being convicted of a crime and not having given "model's right" for my picture to be used, my photo will be seen by many...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right in that it can't be avoided, but you can object to your picture and request that it is removed. However, I feel it comes back to the fact that if you are walking down a street then you are in a public place and can be seen by anyone who is passing, not to mention CCTV on both households and commercial premises. Having perhaps three or four photos taken which then have your face blurred before being published at a date many months in the future with no definite date/time stamp is hardly a threat to people's civil liberties.
Truth be told, I am not a fan of CCTV, it does feel like you're being spied upon. I don't feel very secure with cameras all over town, strange as they're meant to be a cheap "better" service than bobbies on the street. Private companies' CCTV should not be pointing on public highway. If someone's taking a picture of a monument (which in the UK is legal) and you see the photographer, you go and see him or her and tell her to delete the photo or wait a second, just normal human contact and if you don't want your house ask the person. The difference between someone seeing you or doing something and CCTV and Google is that you have no power over what they do, when they do it.
With regards to the DPA... I feel that as the DPA stands at the moment you are technically correct, and this should probably be found to be breaching it. However, whilst I fully support the DPA as a whole, I think some consideration needs to be given to images from public places such as those displayed on Street View. In it's most basic guise, the DPA exists to protect people from having their identities (in terms of names, DOB, address etc) mis-used - be it lost, stored for no reason or illegally sold etc... I don't think Street View is doing any of these things directly, nor under the general "flavour" of the DPA is it stepping out of line.
We are borderline philosophical here and we'd have to argue if the spirit of the law is being respected or not.
Whilst on the subject of the DPA and images. Imagine I'm a shallow minded thug and decide I'm going to vent my physical rage by going to London during the G20 and randomly attack people in suits and deface war memorials and corporate head quarters under the banner of "anti-captialism". I am highly likely to be phtographed and if I'm brave enough to not cover my face, see my photo on the front page of a broadsheet. Despite not being convicted of a crime and not having given "model's right" for my picture to be used, my photo will be seen by many...
A line has to be drawn between living our lives and being photographed beyond our will and someone doing something with the aim to be seen.

 

When I go to the shop, go for a pint, whatever, CCTV is likely filming me not doing much. Just like the argument with fingerprints and wotnot, if I am not doing anything wrong, should I be filmed by a system which stores information in view of being used for something. If I go out and get my kit off, stand in the middle of road I want to be seen, I can't argue with people getting their mobiles out and taking piccies and shouting "get your pants up you filthy bugger".

 

Google has photographed everyday scenes with people not doing much but not going out their way to be photographed. The DPA does protect people and their data but does that include their appearance? government has our ID, eye and hair colour stored and all that, Google is doing the same in effect. It is going on to philosophical grounds. Something I think, like or not, Google should have looked into before just doing it.

 

Then there's the issue of Street View being technically challenged which belongs to another conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My house is on Street View. It was great fun looking at all the houses round about for about ten minutes. Then I started to wonder what the point was?

 

There can be very little advantage to me in having my house on this system. In fact, if I was given a choice it wouldn't be there, as the advantage must be to other people and not to me.

 

For example, if someone is looking to buy a house, they might look at each area before they drive round. Those streets where the bins were being collected that day might look worse than a street where the images were captured on a Monday when everyone is at work, there are no bins, the flowers are out, and everyone cut the grass the day before.

 

Perhaps the worst thing about this new system is that it takes us further down the road towards accepting being spied on. IF we accept that static images are fine as long as faces are blurred, then we might later get moving images (no doubt only for those that can pay) where the software blurrs faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.