RSS Feeds
Online
Notes: Why Is StreetView Getting So Much Negative Press?
Posted by Nick Broughall at 11:03 AM on August 12, 2008
When Google launched its StreetView service in Australia last week, I thought it was a fairly cut and dry story - street-level imaging around a large chunk of Australia, which lets you play virtual tourist and waste an afteroon browsing through addresses you know, hoping to spot yourself or some one you know.
How wrong I was.
Since the launch, there have been countless stories focusing on the privacy concerns raised by the introduction of StreetView. And while that's not a bad thing in itself, in some (if not many) examples, the articles in question seem to be creating more controversy than there actually is.
How wrong I was.
Since the launch, there have been countless stories focusing on the privacy concerns raised by the introduction of StreetView. And while that's not a bad thing in itself, in some (if not many) examples, the articles in question seem to be creating more controversy than there actually is.
That privacy is a concern with StreetView is without question. After all, we've all seen the photos of people in embarrassing situations from the US. However, Google has learnt from the launch of StreetView in the US, and implemented controls to help restrict any invasions of privacy likely to occur.
First of all, the photos they take aren't hi-res, and they're months old by the time they go up online. If you zoom in even a little bit, it becomes practically impossible to get any definition from the image, and even if you could, the photos aren't real time so there's no chance of tracking or stalking individuals through StreetView. In any image where you could make out a person's face or a license plate, the photo has been blurred so that you can't make out the detail.
Because the process is automated, there's a chance that there may be some photos that aren't properly blurred, so Google has the ability for users to request an image to be corrected - or if it isn't appropriate (like when the driver takes photos on a private road, for example) - it can be removed completely. On the whole this is a fairly reasonable system. The Australian Privacy Foundation still believes a lot more can be done to improve the privacy concerns (like make it easier to complain about a photo), concedes that Google has addressed many of these issues in the service's launch.
Case closed then? Not on your life. Yesterday the SMH told us the story of "Bill", who after losing his best mate in a boating accident, got blind drunk then passed out on the lawn outside his mother's place. Not an issue, except that the StreetView cameras rolled past while he was there and snapped his drunken photo for the world to see.
But here's the rub. If "Bill" hadn't spoken to the SMH, but instead just contacted Google and asked them to remove the images of him sprawled across the grass, maybe a couple of hundred people would have seen it, and because his face was blurred, hardly any of them would have known it was him. But because of the SMH story, millions of people have now seen the image and they know the story behind the photo. It wouldn't take a private detective to discover "Bill's" true identity, as well as his mother's address, his address, his phone number and countless other details about him that could constitute an invasion of privacy.
So when you consider the image of "Bill" has been taken down from StreetView already (along with 4 other shots in that street), yet it's still up on SMH's website (as well as leading this story here now), surely the bigger invasion of "Bill's" privacy came from the very paper that was simply reporting the issue.
The simple fact is that aside from human errors (like drivers driving down private roads despite being mandated not to), the images you see on StreetView are the same images you could see - and photograph - yourself if you were to drive around the country. And if you were to drive down some suburban street and take a few photos, nobody would claim invasion of privacy then. So what's different with StreetView? If I can see something with my own eyes, without invading someone's privacy, why can't I look at the same thing online, from the comfort of my home?
Obviously some of you out there will disagree with my thoughts here. Feel free to let me know your in the comments section.
Comments
mike
Posted August 12, 2008 12:25 PM
another case of the media blowing something out of proportion.
Chris
Posted August 12, 2008 1:22 PM
If this is approved in America where they are always on about rights and privacy, I don't see why it is such and issue for Australia. I'm angry that I cant see my house on street view clearly.
Ian
Posted August 12, 2008 1:29 PM
Here here.
I've spoken to half a dozen people about Street View. They've all cited privacy concerns. I've responded with "so what are your concerns about SV's privacy then?". They have nothing to say. They don't even know themselves! Is it fashionable to be 'concerned' about Street View's privacy practices?!
Adz
Posted August 12, 2008 1:35 PM
At least 'Bill' can tell exactly when the StreetView photo's were taken in his mum's street.
We all had to guess approximately when the pictures were taken.
Stew
Posted August 12, 2008 2:12 PM
I completely agree. I have no problem whatsoever with it. It's there for everyone to see if we were to drive there in person, so seriously - what's wrong with looking at low-res months-old pics? How is looking at the street view of a completely public road an invasion of privacy?
It's fun to jump on a bandwagon as long as it has legitimate merit, but this one doesn't. But the storm will soon pass (hopefully) and people will find something else to complain about.
Demis
Posted August 12, 2008 2:32 PM
I know hundreds of Aussies who looked at the service the other day when it launched, emailed around their houses/workplaces to all their friends, and remarked about "how cool it is".
What I didn't hear were any complaints - from anyone.
It bothers me that the most interesting way the media chose to report the story was to focus on the vocal minority, blow it way up out of proportion, and act like the entire country was up in arms.
At the end of the day, apart from the 'private road' issue, I'm yet to see any other privacy outcries which aren't based upon someone doing something they probably wouldn't want to get busted doing. The google cameras could easily have been a friend or colleague walking down the same street, busting them leaving the porn shop, or catching them asleep at the wheel of their work vehicle.
Let them put their 6-month-old photos up online. What's the big deal? If "Bill" doesn't like seeing himself passed out drunk on his mothers lawn, the issue should not be with Google (who provide adequate removal services) but with the SMH which doesn't. And "Bill", despite your grief, there's always crawling those extra few metres out of the gutter next time - it really isn't the place for a sleep....
TedJ
Posted August 12, 2008 2:45 PM
This kind of media hysteria is hardly anything new, but I fear this story won't die out until someone finds the SV image of Ray Martin clubbing a homeless person.
boc
Posted August 12, 2008 4:45 PM
Re: You're point about Bill's case and the greater invasion of privacy - that would not be a privacy issue as Bill would have had to given consent for SMH to obtain that story.
Generally though, most privacy concerns have been addressed by the time it was launched here. Still it'd be easier/simpler if they just removed people all together from images. I know people that are easily identifiable by the clothes they where.
Also there is a difference between you standing in front of my house and taking a photo or just looking at me and Street View. I am aware of your presence and what you're doing. If I don't like it I can tell you to piss off.
Street View does not make it's presence obvious that it is capturing you, whether at home or out and about. That is a concern. If you were paranoid you would have to retrace all your steps on Street View to check you didn't show up anywhere.