Alarm At Google's "Street View"

Newest Mapping Program Includes Photos Of Unwitting Subjects

(AP)  Google Inc. bills the latest twist on its online maps as “Street View,” but it looks a bit like “Candid Camera” as you cruise through the panorama of pictures that captured fleeting moments in neighborhoods scattered across the country.

In San Francisco, there's a man picking his nose on a street corner, another fellow taking out the trash and another guy scaling the outside of an apartment building, perhaps just for fun or maybe for some more sinister purpose.

Further down the highway at Stanford University, there's the titillation of a couple coeds sunbathing in their bikinis. In San Jose, there's the sad sight of a bearded man apparently sleeping — or did he just pass out? — in the shadow of a garbage can, with what appears to be an empty cup perched in front of him.

In Miami, there's a group of protesters carrying signs outside an abortion clinic. In other cities, you can see men entering adult book stores or leaving strip joints.

Potentially embarrassing or compromising scenes like these are raising questions about whether the Internet's leading search engine has gone too far in its latest attempt to make the world a more accessible — and transparent — place.

“Everyone expects a certain level of anonymity as they move about their daily lives,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group devoted to protecting people's rights on the Internet. “There is a certain 'ick' factor here.”

Google is hoping to elicit “oohs and ahhs” with Street View, which was introduced on its maps for the San Francisco Bay area, New York, Las Vegas, Denver and Miami earlier this week. The Mountain View-based company already is planning to expand the service to other U.S. cities and other countries.

The feature provides high-resolution photos to enable street-level tours so users can get a more realistic, 360-degree look at places they might go or spots where they already have been. To guard against privacy intrusions, Google said all the photos were taken from vehicles driving along public streets during the past year. The photos will be periodically updated, but the company hasn't specified a timetable for doing so.

“This imagery is no different from what any person can readily capture or see walking down the street,” Google spokeswoman Megan Quinn said in a statement. “Imagery of this kind is available in a wide variety of formats for cities all around the world.”

Google certainly isn't the first company to venture down this photographic avenue. Amazon.com Inc. launched a similar mapping feature in January 2005 on a search engine called A9.com. That search engine's former chief executive, Udi Manber, now works for Google. And Microsoft Corp. began displaying street-level pictures on its online maps for San Francisco and Seattle late last year.

A9's photographic maps, which were abandoned late last year, raised privacy concerns about women being seen entering domestic violence shelters.

Hoping to avoid similar complaints, Google tried to identify potentially sensitive locations by contacting the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, much to the delight of Cindy Southworth, the group's director.

“We were thrilled that a major technology company like this reached out in this way to help protect these victims,” she said.

Google also is offering a “help” button on all the street-level photos to provide a link for users to request the removal of an image that is objectionable or clearly identifies a person who doesn't want to be included in the visual tapestry. Company spokeswoman Victoria Grand said Google has fielded “very few” removal requests so far.

Eileen Diamond is hoping she can persuade Google to replace its current picture of a Miami street corner where protesters gather once a week to protest the abortions performed at A Choice For Women. The picture, still available on Google's maps Friday afternoon, includes a cluster of protesters standing outside the clinic, an image that clinic administrator Diamond worries will scare away potential patients or perhaps attract troublemakers to the facility.

“It's sort of disturbing because it's certainly not the kind of message we want to be sending out,” said Diamond. “It's already very painful for our patients to come in. We want them to feel safe and protected.”

As of Friday, Diamond said she was still having trouble finding the right way through Google's Web site to notify the company she would like the picture removed.

Privacy experts believe these kinds of ticklish situations are bound to arise as technology makes it increasingly easy to share pictures and video on the Internet, pitting the rights of free expression against the rights to personal privacy.

“What you have to do is balance out the perception against the reality and I think in this case, the perception is much scarier than the reality,” said Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People For Internet Responsibility, a policy group.

Because Google's street-level pictures were taken in public places, the company appears to be on solid legal ground, according to both Bankston and Weinstein.

But Bankston doesn't think the law necessarily absolves Google, particularly since the company has embraced “Don't Be Evil” as its creed. He worries that some people in need of psychological or medical help won't seek treatment for fear of being caught in the cross-hairs of Google's cameras.

“There's a distinction between what Google has a legal right to do and what is the responsible thing to do,” said Bankston, who believes the company should have blurred the images of unwitting pedestrians before it posted the street-level pictures. “It's a problem we as a society have to grapple with, and I think we are just now seeing the fault lines emerge.”

While he thinks some of the issues raised by Google's new service are prime fodder for a healthy debate, Weinstein worries that it might inspire overly repressive laws.

“It's a tough area, but it just seems there is no way around the fact that public spaces are public spaces,” Weinstein said. “You don't want to create an environment where it becomes illegal to take photos in public. It can be riskier not to be able to see something than it is to be able to see something.”

[galaxiana]

I am surprised and saddened to see the EFF going against Google in this. The EFF has traditionally been a staunch defender of our rights of free expression and freedom to do business on the Web, but it's obvious that they've now grown too big and too self-important to remember their roots, and their core constituency.

All things which were once liberal eventually come to be seen as conservative; it is a rite of passage of the generations, just as the Republican Party which was active during the days of our nation's Founding Fathers is now called the "Democratic Party."

What is scary is that this paradigm shift has happened so quickly for the EFF. :(

The EFF has been our biggest defender against government regulation of the Web. Now that it's evident that they no longer stand up for us, who will?

[toolmangler-2009]

Maybe the EFF does not like the thought of someone watching them take a *** . Neither do I.

[prelgovisk]

%u201CIt's already very painful for our patients to come in. We want them to feel safe and protected.%u201D

Yeah, so they can kill their babies and not feel bad about it. Feelings that come from the betrayal of trust by killing the life of a trusting, innocent child resting comfortably in mothers womb SHOULD be painful.

The purpose of pain is to keep you from making things worse. Feel it and become a better person.

[alphaa10-2009]

galaxiana said, "I am surprised and saddened to see the EFF going against Google in this. The EFF has traditionally been a staunch defender of our rights of free expression and freedom to do business on the Web, but it's obvious that they've now grown too big and too self-important..."
---
Part A of this issue is the still-developing concept of web expression, and Part B is a large mass of concerns about expansion of Big Brother surveillance everywhere.

The Brits already do this for their public spaces with all the relish Orwell might have predicted.
The issue for us Americans is whether the social benefit outweighs the social harm.

There are arguments for both sides, and the resolution will be interesting. Meanwhile, watch what you say or do in public-- Big Brother may be watching.

[brianbwb-2009]

to prelgovisk

The pain you refer to is the result of physical injury to the body, either by accident, or as natural consequence to ones' actions. If you think that a D&C is painless, or that abortion is a casual decision, then you are as ignorant of surgical procedures as you are of the difference between natural consequence and artificially imposed consequence.

The admonishment of pain by other people who simply disagree with your decisions regarding a legal activity concerning your own body and the right to control it is NOT a natural consequence to ones' actions, but an actionable legal offense.

You can be anti-abortion, this is your right, but the imposition of your views upon others is not your right. If you are convinced that it is a "sin" then it is a matter between the "sinner" and their Deity, and no business of yours.

[nothappyatall]

"A9's photographic maps, which were abandoned late last year, raised privacy concerns about women being seen entering domestic violence shelters."

Oh RIGHT, like the detail is so great and clear you can identify a face on it- get real! The images are not real time either

[brianbwb-2009]

To all

As the EFF is apparently forgetting its' "roots", maybe it is time to stop supporting them, and form another group to take up the fight.

What happens when Big Brother takes over, then we have no control whatsoever as to what the cameras see, where and how they get their images, or how the images might be interpreted?

I personally think it's time for the "underground internet", as the one we use now has been co-opted and corrupted by commercial and government interests, and no longer the avenue for free exchange of information.

[tuckerndfw]

Like anybody really cares who these bozos are.

Talk about making a mountain out of molehill.

Good thing so many people have so little to worry about that their primary concern is being seen in public...

[dbstevens]

I don't think Google is doing anything particularly wrong, but it does bother me. As fast as this technology is developing, it won't be long before we have to draw our curtains to keep voyeurs from peeking in at us from 2000 miles away. Sounds like an exaggeration? Well, look how far this technology has come in such a short time.

I don't like the overall feeling that we're "being watched." It's disturbing even if it's essentially harmless. And this sort of thing is leading to being watched constantly in all walks of life.

Things are just getting too weird.

[j_flood]

This feature of Google, plus other new and emerging technologies are troublesome - mostly from the rapidity of it occurring. So many of us remember nothing like the things we see as ordinary today just 20 years ago. In a generation or so it will become ordinary and accepted by most. Because we CAN do these things we DO. The knock-on effect from one invention has profound affects on another seemingly harmless endeavor. As a culture we embrace so many technologies with out fear of consequence. "Go gentle into that dark night."

[adian1-2009]

As long as Google's does not enter into my house, I do not see anything wrong with its technology. Why getting alarmed? Are we not supposed to behave with civility in public places? You want to sunbathe in bikini either in a public beach or in your open private yard? I do not see anything wrong in you doing so, nor in the technology that shows you doing so. I do welcome Google's breakthrough. And if incidentally it becomes another resource against crime, then it is even better!

[reel-crazy]

My nosey neighbor puts Google to shame...

[gramto7]

"A9's photographic maps, which were abandoned late last year, raised privacy concerns about women being seen entering domestic violence shelters."

Oh RIGHT, like the detail is so great and clear you can identify a face on it- get real! The images are not real time either
Posted by newster1

I guess it didn't occur to you that women, and usually their children also, are not in the shelters just one night! They are usually there for several weeks/months. Therefore, someone hiding from an abusive family member could have been found and injured or killed by using those pictures!

[bobnjersey]

[As long as Google's does not enter into my house, I do not see anything wrong with its technology. Why getting alarmed?]
[Posted by adian1 at 05:10 AM : Jun 02, 2007]

they're in alpha release on 'google idiots' (ignorance detector) ... no need to enter the house ... just fly by and the house gets 'colored' accordingly. measures all type of ignorance.

you ok w/ this too?

[ralan40]

If someone was really after a woman entering a shelter, it would be easier to just stalk them and not wait for the instance where the person may, by some chance, show up in a picture. Face it, we have no privacy, anymore. There are cameras, everywhere. In most cities, your image is probably captured dozens of times each day. Pumping gas, using ATM, grocery shopping. I'm sure if someone was able to tie THOSE together in real time, we'd have problems. We all "loudly shout" to marketing companies our buying behaviors when we use a credit card, for example. Cell phones allow the ability to be located. It is too late to decry any loss of privacy at this point, I'm afraid.

[l8c6]

brucestevens, ....and who's to say drawing ones drapes will be enough to maintain privacy.

[britski-2009]

"As of Friday, Diamond said she was still having trouble finding the right way through Google's Web site to notify the company she would like the picture removed."

It seems Ms. Diamond hasn't tried too hard to figure it out since it took me about 15 seconds to locate the Report Inappropriate Street View page. Give me a break.

Furthermore, I echo the sentiments of other posters that there are much more effective ways to "stalk" someone than by using Google maps.

Go Google!

[tuckerndfw]

It appears that some people did not read (or comprehend) the story.

The images are months or years old. They are not real time images. The satellite images Google is currently using are years old. And, you cannot identify people or automobiles due to the low resolution.

Google using random pictures of people in public does not pose a threat to anyone. Even if the individual was Osama bin Laden, by the time the picture was posted, he would be long gone.

The uproar is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

It is equivalent to complaining because someone took a picture at the mall and you happened to be in the background.

Stupid. Totally stupid.

[bareemperor]

The Google service is great, the images very clear. This backlash is tiny, and Google placed a 'help' feature, so you may be able to wipe out a certain pic.
With the thousands of times your image is recorded each day in many cities, this is more a curiosity at this time, not an invasion of your privacy.

[finny06]

Yes, they invade our privacy - but let's not forget the other evil thing that Google does - they are kings of advertising.
Google + Doubleclick

They are just making the materialism and consumerism in our country worse. First do no evil? They're doing evil after evil after evil.

[shanev137]

Pretty hilarious.

I can turn on my computer and watch a guy 3,000 miles away in California pick his nose on a street corner, but Bush can't find OBL after 6 years.

Hey Bush, maybe your CIA and FBI should pull up some internets sometime and try Google....you loser.

[missingamerica]

Too bad they didn't advertise when they would be taking the street level pics - I wager they'd have been a LOT more entertaining.

[undermyboot]

We have GOVERNMENT CAMERAS EVERYWHERE in our cities and creeping into our towns, and you IDIOTS are worried about old STATIC pictures? LMFAO The government must have planted this article to distract you fools from what they are doing.

You people are complete MORONS. 10 MILLION Cameras already watch everything you do in REAL TIME. What you DO is RECORDED in real time. ORWELL was wrong- it's GOING TO BE MUCH WORSE.

[chris12karen]

seems as though google is handling this in a much more responsible manner than most tech companies do

[Mapper99]

This is getting interesting for sure. Take a look at this comprehensive list of Google Street View Sightings:

http://www.laudontech.com/StreetView/streetview.html

Everthing from crimes in progress to wildlife sightings

[finny06]

The evils of google:
1) Invading privacy.
2) Advertising supported materialism
3) Helping terrorists

On that last one, the people involved in the JFK terror plot studied images from google earth.

That's why I hate Google. They are an evil company.

[geotrotter]

I added all the best "Google Street View" here : http://www.geo-trotter.com/cat-street-view.php.

[ralan40]

UnderMyBoot , I agree but don't forget the loss of privacy everytime you make a credit card purchase. I think your concern should be more for the private sector than the govt, directly.
The govt only needs to go to big business to get the info they need.
I'm not too worried about the govt. They have not proven themselves competent to be that organized.

The Govt couldn't pour sand out of a boot...even with the instructions written on the heel!