This never made sense to me. Prior to Street View, at least two German companies did the same thing (photographing every street with essentially the same technology,and putting it online). Noone complained. Now that Google is doing it, it's suddenly a huge privacy nightmare. I just don't understand.
I think it is more to do with the reputation that Google is gaining and also the fact that they already have a /tremendous/ amounts of information about their users and it is another part of that information collection drive which can and will be connected to the rest and thus making it much more comprehensive.
Most of it is just misinformation.
People think the images are realtime. They think you can move the camera to go to places and e.g. look into windows to see what your neighbour is doing right now.
The other part is irrational fear.
Fear that thieves will use 2 year old images to check out a house, fear that some potential employer won't hire them because you apartment complex looks shitty (Some Germans really like their house fronts - contrast that to the France that most don't care at all what it looks like from the outside, as ling as it's attractive from the inside).
It always fascinates me that any given action by a business, when seen through various cultural lenses, may appear sinister which to me is of the most innocuous variety. Working for Google, these differences in perception affect my daily life with unfortunate frequency.
The problem is that it's a unhealthy mix of missinformation, summer slump politics and unreasonable fear, with a little dash of propaganda.
One more thing: If a potential employer won't hire me, because the facade of the house i live in looks like a mess, I don't want to work for this employer. (The same thing is true for drunken Oktoberfest pictures on Facebook or whatnot.)
Let's say you own a motorhome/caravan and it's kept on your drive. To determine whether you are away on holiday or not, all I need to do is drive by your house and compare what I see with what Street View shows.
I can take a 2hr drive through suburbia and draw up a nice list of homes whose residents are unlikely to be in when I come by again in the evening.
Das Telefonbuch have a system where you can look up someone's name in a town, and list their address and provide links to view satellite images of the street:
If Germans were really more conscious of privacy then I suspect they'd be worried about this, but as previous posters have said it's more down to misinformation and exaggeration.
Correct. Ariel images show you things that are not visible to a driver or pedestrian. Much bigger privacy risk if you actually thought about it for a second...
As mentioned below, Sightwalk is one, I forget the other one. I hadn't heard of the other one before the Street View mess either, so I'm not too surprised. But as far as I'm aware, Sightwalk made it very public that they were doing this, and did not get much criticism at the time. Their optout method is nearly identical to the one Google is currently offering.
While talking about this with other people (also in Germany), I also learned that the government does regular flyovers (at least in some cities) and also sells the images they create. Much better insights than just glimpses from the streets.
Premium-grade FUD, really interesting to observe (I live in Germany). What I find interesting is that while no direct legislative action is being taken by politicians on this front, they generate so much noise in the media that people are opting out all by themselves. Sneaky because you can't even actively arbitrage against this.
To put things into perspective: Google has a 97% market share for search here in Germany, IIRC. Don't know the other numbers, but they are probably quite high for online video, too.
Also, I'd say, people here don't have the blind faith, U.S. people seem to have concerning cooperations and free markets.
Under these circumstances, it shouldn't be a surprise that Germans are reluctant to watch some large cooperation build another potential monopoly out of other people's "property" -- namely their privacy.
First, do they have a right to use a camera mounted in a height above the normal eye level? Why should people be required to adjust the height of their fences to protect themselves from Google's view? Just because there are no laws against this yet, doens't mean Google has a right.
Second, even if they have the right to make the photos, do they also have the right to automatically make them public? There's no human judgement involved, so who's responsible when Google camera catches you naked while sun-bathing in your own garden? Who can be sued for taking these images down and who's paying for the damage that is created while the photos were online?
Third, do the have the right to connect the photos with street addresss so the views are searchable? This decreases search costs and your home will be public not just to bypassers, but to anyone. Who said, they are allowded to do that?
And this is the point: They asked noone but just though they could act as if they are free do however they please. This may work in the U.S. but this doens't work here. Or, at least, that's not how it should work.
1. Three meters is not an unreasonable height, that’s about your eye height in a bus. People already don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy from cameras that height.
2. They have the right to make them public. It’s right there in the law. And if something goes wrong you can sue Google - they are responsible, they have a German address and all.
3. It’s not illegal. You don’t have to ask anybody.
Google can take photos in public and I don’t want anyone to take that right away from Google because at the same time my right to do the same is also taken away. Can’t you see that? You also seem to have a poor understanding of the current legislation in Germany.
I'm sorry, I find it grossly naive that you believe a photograph taken from beyond the legislated privacy fence height in most jurisdictions to be not unreasonable. Of course people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy from 3 meters tall, they have a reasonable expectation that people will respect the spirit of the law and not be a raging moron and place a camera at that height.
I do know that in many jurisdictions, probably including Germany, that it is completely 100% illegal to profit from your photography of another person without their written consent. Given that Google photographed several of my friends, didn't get them to sign a released and is making a profit off of its unconsented photography it is violating the law.
So, just for clarification. Google is violating the law in many jurisdictions. I'm unsure about Germany, but I know they are in the UK and Canada even though no charges have been brought. Perhaps because Google isn't specifically trying to make a profit off of the personal images they have taken, but under the letter of the law they are completely violating it at the moment. This is perhaps why they are working on software to remove people from their photographs, because they already know they're breaking the law.
It’s perfectly legal to profit from photos which happen to have people in them without any consent, written or otherwise. And I damn well hope that it stays that way.
Nestle lost a $15m suit because it forgot a consent form for a model. A girl from Africa settled a case for an undisclosed amount from a photo taken in Africa, in the LA courts because her image was used for advertising without her consent, this happened over a decade later IIRC when she'd moved to the US and was in the process of becoming a model.
You, in general, don't have to have consent to take a photograph of a persons property, because property cannot be defamed in any way. However, making money off of a photograph of someone else without their consent opens you up to a whole host of civil suits that by tort law has almost always been a loser for the photographer.
Not to mention the automated nature of Street View has let a way too many images of semi-naked/naked photos of people onto the internet without their consent, including one of a child, which should never have gotten online to begin with, but legally speaking should never have been photographed to begin with, but we're talking civil violation of the law here and not criminal so I won't go onto this.
Your assumption that three meters is "reasonable" is just a personal opinion: Buses don't drive everywhere, and if your house happens to be on a bus route, you know that and you can react appropriately.
Also, their passengers are unlikely to make photos from some unspectacular houses somewhere, put them online, and link them with the relevant addresses.
Google may have a German address but who's got the copyright of these photos? Do you know if it's the German company or is it the American one? In general, why should anyone be forced to sue? You would need to have a case, and it's not always possible to prove damage. For example, proof that your reputation was damaged when street view caught you making love with your wife in your own garden, surrounded by a two meter fence.
Concerning the law: You and your face is also public when you happen to be in a public place. But there's also a law concerning your right to your own photo, ie. I can't simply take a photo of you walking down a public street and put it online without asking for permission.
But when you're arguing that it's a moral sufficient justification that someone somewhere can make money off of it, shouldn't we drop that law?
Then, everybody can add add motion detection to the cameras and put these cars in front of some 'interesting' houses! Say, the houses of Google employees, taking photos of them, their wifes and their children. Maybe, there's a business model for that, too.
And why stop there? What about people in law enforcement, the military, public administration and politicians? After all, it's all public and as long as someone pays for it, you obviously think it's OK that it be done.
I guess, you wouldn't want that. But if people have a right for their own photos, why not also their own houses?
Your last argument can also be turned around: Laws against street view would not only protect everybody else, but you, your wife, your children, too. In general, just because you can do X, doesn't mean you have the right to do X.
I'm always amazed to see this come up again. (I do live there) The irrationality culminates when people are interviewed by local newspapers, which then put them in front of the or home in a huge image right above the article where they complain about the privacy issues they have with Google photographing their home.
On a final note there is a short enjoyable parody od the situation from the leader of the political party THE PARTEI, about Google "Home View" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYMGkQTpODY) language is German, though I assume one can follow easily without knowing any German. I haven't found a transcript nor English version. :(
"Nazis' Gestapo and the East German Stasi secret police"
Ooops - it seems many people might not realize that Street View images are not live. There was also another statement in a newspaper here (Germany) where some police officers were considering if they could do virtual patrols. Misinformation leads to fear...
I think in the long run, the opposite thing will be much more important: people will fight to be IN street view. If you are a shop owner, not being on street view will be a significant disadvantage.
Not only will outdated pictures be a problem, but also the people living above your shop who opted out of Street View.
I'm currently in Germany. When I left the US everybody was talking about Google's net neutrality issues. In Germany those things were barely even mentioned.
I think this alleged "street view scandal" covered up the whole net neutrality scandal (which IMHO is much more important).
36 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 88.0 ms ] threadThis never made sense to me. Prior to Street View, at least two German companies did the same thing (photographing every street with essentially the same technology,and putting it online). Noone complained. Now that Google is doing it, it's suddenly a huge privacy nightmare. I just don't understand.
/ german
The other part is irrational fear. Fear that thieves will use 2 year old images to check out a house, fear that some potential employer won't hire them because you apartment complex looks shitty (Some Germans really like their house fronts - contrast that to the France that most don't care at all what it looks like from the outside, as ling as it's attractive from the inside).
So yes, it's a German thing.
One more thing: If a potential employer won't hire me, because the facade of the house i live in looks like a mess, I don't want to work for this employer. (The same thing is true for drunken Oktoberfest pictures on Facebook or whatnot.)
I can take a 2hr drive through suburbia and draw up a nice list of homes whose residents are unlikely to be in when I come by again in the evening.
http://www.dastelefonbuch.de/
If Germans were really more conscious of privacy then I suspect they'd be worried about this, but as previous posters have said it's more down to misinformation and exaggeration.
Also, I'd say, people here don't have the blind faith, U.S. people seem to have concerning cooperations and free markets.
Under these circumstances, it shouldn't be a surprise that Germans are reluctant to watch some large cooperation build another potential monopoly out of other people's "property" -- namely their privacy.
First, do they have a right to use a camera mounted in a height above the normal eye level? Why should people be required to adjust the height of their fences to protect themselves from Google's view? Just because there are no laws against this yet, doens't mean Google has a right.
Second, even if they have the right to make the photos, do they also have the right to automatically make them public? There's no human judgement involved, so who's responsible when Google camera catches you naked while sun-bathing in your own garden? Who can be sued for taking these images down and who's paying for the damage that is created while the photos were online?
Third, do the have the right to connect the photos with street addresss so the views are searchable? This decreases search costs and your home will be public not just to bypassers, but to anyone. Who said, they are allowded to do that?
And this is the point: They asked noone but just though they could act as if they are free do however they please. This may work in the U.S. but this doens't work here. Or, at least, that's not how it should work.
2. They have the right to make them public. It’s right there in the law. And if something goes wrong you can sue Google - they are responsible, they have a German address and all.
3. It’s not illegal. You don’t have to ask anybody.
Google can take photos in public and I don’t want anyone to take that right away from Google because at the same time my right to do the same is also taken away. Can’t you see that? You also seem to have a poor understanding of the current legislation in Germany.
I do know that in many jurisdictions, probably including Germany, that it is completely 100% illegal to profit from your photography of another person without their written consent. Given that Google photographed several of my friends, didn't get them to sign a released and is making a profit off of its unconsented photography it is violating the law.
So, just for clarification. Google is violating the law in many jurisdictions. I'm unsure about Germany, but I know they are in the UK and Canada even though no charges have been brought. Perhaps because Google isn't specifically trying to make a profit off of the personal images they have taken, but under the letter of the law they are completely violating it at the moment. This is perhaps why they are working on software to remove people from their photographs, because they already know they're breaking the law.
You, in general, don't have to have consent to take a photograph of a persons property, because property cannot be defamed in any way. However, making money off of a photograph of someone else without their consent opens you up to a whole host of civil suits that by tort law has almost always been a loser for the photographer.
Not to mention the automated nature of Street View has let a way too many images of semi-naked/naked photos of people onto the internet without their consent, including one of a child, which should never have gotten online to begin with, but legally speaking should never have been photographed to begin with, but we're talking civil violation of the law here and not criminal so I won't go onto this.
Also, their passengers are unlikely to make photos from some unspectacular houses somewhere, put them online, and link them with the relevant addresses.
Google may have a German address but who's got the copyright of these photos? Do you know if it's the German company or is it the American one? In general, why should anyone be forced to sue? You would need to have a case, and it's not always possible to prove damage. For example, proof that your reputation was damaged when street view caught you making love with your wife in your own garden, surrounded by a two meter fence.
Concerning the law: You and your face is also public when you happen to be in a public place. But there's also a law concerning your right to your own photo, ie. I can't simply take a photo of you walking down a public street and put it online without asking for permission.
But when you're arguing that it's a moral sufficient justification that someone somewhere can make money off of it, shouldn't we drop that law?
Then, everybody can add add motion detection to the cameras and put these cars in front of some 'interesting' houses! Say, the houses of Google employees, taking photos of them, their wifes and their children. Maybe, there's a business model for that, too.
And why stop there? What about people in law enforcement, the military, public administration and politicians? After all, it's all public and as long as someone pays for it, you obviously think it's OK that it be done.
I guess, you wouldn't want that. But if people have a right for their own photos, why not also their own houses?
Your last argument can also be turned around: Laws against street view would not only protect everybody else, but you, your wife, your children, too. In general, just because you can do X, doesn't mean you have the right to do X.
On a final note there is a short enjoyable parody od the situation from the leader of the political party THE PARTEI, about Google "Home View" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYMGkQTpODY) language is German, though I assume one can follow easily without knowing any German. I haven't found a transcript nor English version. :(
Ooops - it seems many people might not realize that Street View images are not live. There was also another statement in a newspaper here (Germany) where some police officers were considering if they could do virtual patrols. Misinformation leads to fear...
I think in the long run, the opposite thing will be much more important: people will fight to be IN street view. If you are a shop owner, not being on street view will be a significant disadvantage.
Not only will outdated pictures be a problem, but also the people living above your shop who opted out of Street View.
http://www.edparsons.com/2010/09/germany-doomed-never-to-inn...
I think this alleged "street view scandal" covered up the whole net neutrality scandal (which IMHO is much more important).