Google Removes Images From UK Street View

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Google Removes Images From UK Street View


Mere days after its launch, the UK version of Google Maps Street View is coming under fire.

The service, launched on Thursday, has drawn the ire of the public, as well as academics and politicians. Google used cars fitted with special cameras to take photos of the streets of twenty-five UK cities, prompting a wave of people trying to find themselves. Some people, however, were less than happy with what they found, and contacted Google to have images removed.

Amongst the images removed, were a man leaving a sex shop, a person vomiting and someone being arrested. Google have removed the offending images with black screens, although many images can still be viewed from slightly different angles. Google uses face recognition technology to automatically blur our faces and number plates, and the Information Commissioner's Office ruled last year that this was sufficient to protect people's privacy. Google's Laura Scott, speaking to the BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7954596.stm], defended the service, saying: "We want this to be a useful tool and it's people's right to have their image removed ... The fact there are now gaps [in Street View] shows how responsive we are."

Dr Ian Brown, a privacy expert at the Oxford Internet Institute, said he was not surprised that there were some offending images, "This is exactly what you would expect from a service that relies on individuals to help Google not make mistakes," he said, "[Google] should have thought more carefully about how they designed the service to avoid exactly this sort of thing." Dr Brown's solution to the problem, was for Google to have taken the pictures twice, on different days, which is easy for him to say, but Google drove over 22,000 miles while taking the pictures.

But it's not just the public that has issues with Google's new service though. Ian Paisley Jnr, a member of the Northern Ireland assembly called Google "reckless" and that they had "given security services a headache", as Street View shows the locations of police stations and army bases. Given the recent resurgence of violence in Northern Ireland, Paisley's concerns are understandable, but as the images show what anyone driving down the street could see for themselves, they are perhaps a little ill-informed.

Neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Police Service of Northern Ireland said they wished to comment on the Street View service but a Google spokesperson said: "We spoke to the Police Service of Northern Ireland before we started driving, and made sure they were aware of the project - they did not raise any concerns."

"In fact, the police in the UK and elsewhere have welcomed Google Maps and Street View as a helpful tool to raise awareness of crime, and in some cases even help deal with crime itself," she added.


Source: BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7955062.stm]

Permalink
 

Smiles

New member
Mar 7, 2008
476
0
0
Maybe if people realize they are being watched by Google they will think twice before doing something stupid.
 

Ronwue

New member
Oct 22, 2008
607
0
0
I am really curious as to the expression the man leaving the sex shop had, when he saw his picture. And if he wasn't the one, who was it to draw his attention to it?
 

DJPirtu

New member
Nov 24, 2008
55
0
0
Smiles said:
Maybe if people realize they are being watched by Google they will think twice before doing something stupid.
That statement there has some seriously twisted undertones in it.
An Orwellian future, where the big brother has brightly colored 'O's in its name... The mind boggles.
 

Nimbus

Token Irish Guy
Oct 22, 2008
2,162
0
0
There should be some law, that if you do something in public, in broad daylight, then it's in the public domain. Seriously, if you don't want to be caught comming out of a sex shop, don't go into the sex shop.
 

kawligia

New member
Feb 24, 2009
779
0
0
And the last remnant of privacy has a near-fatal stroke; technically still alive, but not for much longer.
 

Jamash

Top Todger
Jun 25, 2008
3,641
0
0
Nimbus said:
There should be some law, that if you do something in public, in broad daylight, then it's in the public domain.
So, if a website called The World's Biggest Cry-Babies had a photo of you blubbing at a loved one's funeral, you'd be perfect fine with that, since it was in the public domain?

How about if the website had a hyperlink next to your photo, linking to it's affiliated site www.rubberneck.com - We gawk so you don't have to with photos of the same loved one's last, undignified moments as they lay twisted and mangled in the car wreck which claimed their life?

What about in you got beaten up or mugged, and images of your plight appeared on Beat Downs - The Biggest Pussies in the World.com?

I know I'm coming up with extreme examples, but my point is that not everything which happens in broad daylight should be in the public domain.
 

scotth266

Wait when did I get a sub
Jan 10, 2009
5,202
0
0
*sigh*

It's not an invasion of privacy unless someone busts into your home. Otherwise you're out in public.
 

Fronken

New member
May 10, 2008
1,120
0
0
Nimbus said:
There should be some law, that if you do something in public, in broad daylight, then it's in the public domain. Seriously, if you don't want to be caught comming out of a sex shop, don't go into the sex shop.
I dont really agree with the government/coperations keeping track of our lifes "big brother" style, but this actually sounds like a good idea, i mean one would think twice about doing stupid shit if you knew whoever could see you do it, for example, who would cheat on their wifes if they knew that the wife could find pictures of them doing so on the internet?

I sure wouldnt, though i would never cheat in the first place...but still, you get the point.
 

Johnn Johnston

New member
May 4, 2008
2,519
0
0
I find that every tabloid in the country has been calling the cars "The Google Spies", seemingly not realising that it is merely a cataloguing task and not an invasion of your privacy. If it was, they would refuse to take down the images.
 

Ago Iterum

New member
Dec 31, 2007
1,366
0
0
Sewblon said:
No one should need permission to record and display what happens in public.
Yes they should. Everyone should have a right not to be put in the public eye, on TV/the internet against their will.