!!

Guests can now post!

Welcome to Intelligent Answers.  As a guest, you are now able to post a question, subject to getting through our spam-bot filters.  However, if you want to answer any questions, you will need to register.  Thanks for visting!  (BTW - guests cannot post links, and if you post spam, we will block your IP and report you to every spam protection site we can find - we work hard to keep this site spam free for the benefit and enjoyment of our members!)

Author Topic: Google, on the streets.  (Read 3342 times)

Offline jacquesdor

  • Founder member.
  • Founder
  • Bachelor
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 64
  • -Receive: 13
  • Posts: 576
  • Helpfulness: 24
  • .
Google, on the streets.
« on: 03 April, 2009, 09:48:40 AM »
I am interested in the Google Street view thing. There have been lots of complaints about invasion of privacy and all that. If I were to walk down a street and , for example, notice two small children playing naked in their garden, would I be at fault for having seen them ?
My thought is that whatever has been caught on the cameras has been done in public, so there is no invasion of privacy.
When you see a drunk up chucking in a gutter, do you feel at fault for having witnessed something done publically?
How can Google be held responsible for what people are doing?
Is there such a difference between seeing something and photographing it?

Offline siasl

  • Founder member who you can't insult as I'm too ignorant.
  • Administrator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 122
  • -Receive: 85
  • Posts: 5306
  • Helpfulness: 129
  • Intelligence is soluble in alcohol <hic>
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #1 on: 03 April, 2009, 09:59:16 AM »
Interesting little article here - some folks in a village in Bucks ran a Google-camera-car out of town:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/250698/angry-villagers-run-google-out-of-town.html

Their argument "we're rich and don't want our houses on t'interwebs", said whilst waving pitchforks and burning torches...

The argument for removing "offensive/inappropriate" images is purely that they aren't appropriate for Google's aims. I suspect the end result of this Streetview project is to provide a funky new SatNav service that lets you know what the route actually looks like - I imagine images of nekkid kiddies and up-chucking drunks would distract from driving  ;D

Also, there's the potential for those that are imaged in such states to be offended by the resultant images (and potential ridicule as there are various wags that make a point of searching for such things and publishing same for all and sundry to mock)

Offline Hiheels

  • Founder member, in the naughty corner for smoking in the café.
  • Founder
  • Chancellor
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 123
  • -Receive: 82
  • Posts: 5060
  • Helpfulness: 677
  • Yes, yes, very nice. Now put it away.
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #2 on: 03 April, 2009, 10:06:03 AM »
What a cracking question  ;D

I think part of the answer lies in the difference between privacy and privacy laws, without trying to split hairs and also coming from a non-educated perspective
Leeds University's library website says about using images:

"Putting images on the internet
If you have images or photographs which you would like to put on the internet you must check that permission has been given for them to be published in this way. If you are not the rights-owner and you do not know that the artist/photographer has been dead for 70 years then you will need explicit permission to publish.

If the photograph contains images of people (especially children) you must also check under privacy law that they are unidentifiable or that their permission was given for their image to be used.

If you want to use images in your teaching material, it is best to put them on a restricted access web site (such as the VLE) rather than an open-access page visible from anywhere in the world. This is particularly important where you have secured permission to use or adapt images in a particular way to support your teaching."


My very basic understanding of that would be that although things have happened in public and you may expect a few people to see you, you haven't given permission for it to be a lasting image that millions of people could gawp at.

I may be wide of the mark here and our own Logicalawyer may well be able to shed more light.



Offline siasl

  • Founder member who you can't insult as I'm too ignorant.
  • Administrator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 122
  • -Receive: 85
  • Posts: 5306
  • Helpfulness: 129
  • Intelligence is soluble in alcohol <hic>
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #3 on: 03 April, 2009, 10:14:43 AM »
I think the area is less clear-cut than Leeds Uni would have you think. Does Aunty-Beeb ask everyone in the news video shots down a high street for their permission to be in the shot? I think not. Do such pics end up on their website, mais oui.

If you're in a public place, I don't think you can have that much of an expectation of privacy, but I think there is a lot of "context" type arguments available. JK Rowling recently got some damages (or at least an apology and withdrawal) for some papparazi shots of her family on the grounds that the shots were intruding into *her children's* reasonable expectation of privacy - I've no idea whether the pictures in question were taken of them on public or private property, though.

Also, how else do the paps earn a living - they follow celebs round like flies on poo, taking pics all the while. This pics frequently end up on the web, yet I can guarantee the celebs have not authorised them

Offline Hiheels

  • Founder member, in the naughty corner for smoking in the café.
  • Founder
  • Chancellor
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 123
  • -Receive: 82
  • Posts: 5060
  • Helpfulness: 677
  • Yes, yes, very nice. Now put it away.
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #4 on: 03 April, 2009, 10:25:52 AM »
Aye 'tis true, and celebs sometimes do make 'invasion of privacy' claims...but also many celebs are exposure hungry, but want to turn it off and on at will.
I can see how it would be rather wearing, but there are those who seem to ably avoid it.

I'd agree about context, if you chose to go sunbathing nekkid in your overlooked garden, you would rather expect some gawping. However, were you to do the same in a secluded garden and then got snapped by someone in a plane or helicopter it would be rather different as your choice had been taken away.

Offline siasl

  • Founder member who you can't insult as I'm too ignorant.
  • Administrator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 122
  • -Receive: 85
  • Posts: 5306
  • Helpfulness: 129
  • Intelligence is soluble in alcohol <hic>
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #5 on: 03 April, 2009, 10:32:41 AM »
There's also a phenomena called "The Streisand Effect" to be wary of. In 2003, Barbara sued a photographer for $50m for publishing an aerial photo of her house on the coast of California - used as documentation for coastal erosion. As a result of the case, 420,000 site visits were recorded in the month following by folks wanting to have a peek at her house. If she hadn't fussed, I doubt anyone would have noticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect


Offline robinsamuels

  • Founder member.
  • Founder
  • Student - A Level
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 0
  • Posts: 408
  • Helpfulness: 11
  • Never argue with an armed queen!
    • Robins
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #6 on: 03 April, 2009, 11:19:52 AM »
Don't forget that to publish, or otherwise make available, an image of an under 18 is illegal.

Offline siasl

  • Founder member who you can't insult as I'm too ignorant.
  • Administrator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 122
  • -Receive: 85
  • Posts: 5306
  • Helpfulness: 129
  • Intelligence is soluble in alcohol <hic>
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #7 on: 03 April, 2009, 11:36:03 AM »
Really - Posh & becks kids faces are now unblurred in the media - I'm fairly certain that they've not yet reached 18 years of age. Here's video of him plus kids on the Mirror site:

Offline robinsamuels

  • Founder member.
  • Founder
  • Student - A Level
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 0
  • Posts: 408
  • Helpfulness: 11
  • Never argue with an armed queen!
    • Robins
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #8 on: 03 April, 2009, 02:23:23 PM »
Yes, sorry, I played with my post after first typing it and deleted "naked" by mistake!

Offline siasl

  • Founder member who you can't insult as I'm too ignorant.
  • Administrator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 122
  • -Receive: 85
  • Posts: 5306
  • Helpfulness: 129
  • Intelligence is soluble in alcohol <hic>
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #9 on: 03 April, 2009, 03:15:54 PM »
I'm not even sure that that would be illegal, if so, then this would be:


It all hinges on intent - under the new laws that came about late last year, I suspect if someone has copies of stuff that they get their rocks off to, and the content is deemed violent/paedophilic, then they're nicked - never mind that those partaking may well have been consenting adults.


--
edit to make the image a smaller one
« Last Edit: 03 April, 2009, 04:06:13 PM by siasl »

Offline robinsamuels

  • Founder member.
  • Founder
  • Student - A Level
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 0
  • Posts: 408
  • Helpfulness: 11
  • Never argue with an armed queen!
    • Robins
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #10 on: 03 April, 2009, 04:01:03 PM »
Consent is irrelevant in relation to under 18s.

Offline siasl

  • Founder member who you can't insult as I'm too ignorant.
  • Administrator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 122
  • -Receive: 85
  • Posts: 5306
  • Helpfulness: 129
  • Intelligence is soluble in alcohol <hic>
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #11 on: 03 April, 2009, 04:03:58 PM »
I agree - but if they *appear to be* under 18, but aren't - you're still nicked

Offline siasl

  • Founder member who you can't insult as I'm too ignorant.
  • Administrator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 122
  • -Receive: 85
  • Posts: 5306
  • Helpfulness: 129
  • Intelligence is soluble in alcohol <hic>
Re: Google, on the streets.
« Reply #12 on: 03 April, 2009, 04:06:54 PM »
nb - that sort of thing doesn't float my boat, it's just that the law is a bit of an ass in this area