Are Google's moves creeping you out?

(continued from previous page)

"The reality is, it can expect much more of this type of treatment as it continues to monitor much of what we do" and accelerates its efforts at personalization, Sullivan wrote. "To save itself, I'd like to see Google appoint a privacy czar, someone charged with...assuming the worst about the company and diligently working to ensure users have as much protection as possible."

While Google doesn't have an official privacy czar, it has an associate general counsel for ethics and compliance, and 14 staff lawyers who serve as product counsel, supporting the development of products from inception to launch and reviewing them for privacy issues, Wong said. "We ask at the very start of the design of a product, what kind of information are you thinking of collecting, and what are you going to do with it?"

Before releasing the street-level map view, Google reached out to domestic-violence organizations, she said. "With Street View, we gave a lot of thought to what the privacy consequences would be. We built a flagging mechanism in it so users could report inappropriate images," she said. "In the first few days after launch, we had a very small number of flags. That rate is decreasing every day."

Google executives and product managers had numerous discussions about the privacy and ethical implications of the product before releasing it, Wong added. "We tried to balance offering a strong, useful product for users with the privacy implications of it," she said.

The company's vision with the service was to "put people in touch with what a street looks like, (to) get something more realistic and helpful to me than lines drawn on a street map," Wong said. The street-level view is helpful for looking at a city before going on vacation, viewing a neighborhood before purchasing a house and serving as an additional visual aid for driving directions, she said.

While it certainly does that, "it's a trade-off," said Christopher Slobogin, a professor at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law. "A lot of people want this stuff. They don't mind giving up a little bit of privacy to be able to get it."

Daniel Solove, a law professor at George Washington University, is one of them.

"I don't want to trivialize it, but I also don't think it should be blown out of proportion. It raises some interesting questions, but at the end of the day, it's not the kind of thing that leaves me sleepless at night or leaves me outraged," Solove said. "Google could be a little bit more careful about what they're doing, but I've seen much, much worse."

But what is seen as a helpful online tool to one person can feel too close for comfort to someone whose face, license plate or comings and goings end up displayed on Google Maps.

"It used to be (that) your divorce records were public but sitting in a courthouse. Now they're on the Web. Your house used to be visible on the street; now it's visible from anywhere on the planet," said Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer of Internet security firm BT Counterpane, who has written extensively about privacy and security.

"Now it's on the Web, and anybody can see it forever, and that's just different," he said. "There are some very deeply philosophical privacy concerns that we, as a society, need to address."

Ultimately, Schneier, Wong and the legal experts agreed that laws should be updated to address the issues that technology advancements raise. New inventions have always driven privacy legislation. For instance, the advent of photography and the widespread circulation of newspapers in the late 1800s led to the first laws protecting privacy between individuals in the United States, said Ken Gormley, professor of constitutional law at Duquesne University.

"It's the kind of thing state legislators have to grapple with," Gormley said. Meanwhile, constitutional protections cover government intrusions of citizens' privacy.

"The bottom line is, you are fair game if you are in public," Slobogin said. "If it's just a random snapshot of one moment in a person's life, I think that's something we've got to put up with."

[jatos]

privacy

I like Google on the whole. I am on the whole not too worried about the data they have on me, bit I do think they should start making some effort to ensure that you can't certain info about one person on Google maps. In particular I think they should blur people and cars.

[jones_8099]

Not going to happen.

It would take to much time and to much money to blur out people
and cars and at time make the photos useless causing new ones to
have to be taken. If you don't want people seeing you do something
then don't do it on a PUBLIC street. Anyone who expects privacy on
a street corner (or any public place for that matter) needs help.

[make_or_break]

Privacy? How about security?

Not only does Google draw the maps for al-Qaeda, they will provide the panoramic snapshots to aid in instructing their traveling terror cells on the best spots to park that truck bomb with the itchy hair trigger of theirs.

The harbinger of rampant information accumulation and subsequent thoughtless distribution to come. Ah, yes...that's our Wall Street darling sweetheart Google.

[Fil0403]

Hipocrisy

Something tells if it would be Microsoft your (and many other people's) opinion would be slightly different, which leads one to think people are as worried about their privacy as they are about their most hated company knowing something about them.

[shoffmueller]

No other company could get by with this

The fact that Google is such a popular company allows it to get a pass on this stuff. Any other company would get killed. Imagine the flames on this forumn if Microsoft or Apple would roll out this technology.

[jatos]

Google

With MS, it doesn't help that they have a reputation for abusing their rep. Up and until recently Google has had a really good reputation. Providing they sort out the privacy issues they still will.

[unknown unknown]

Wrong, Microsoft has it.

Google wasn't the first to have a street level view in their maps. They're certainly the biggest (or least most popular) but definitely not the first. Microsoft already has a feature like this built in to their Windows Live Local map service and has for several months now. The Google privacy hawks tend to have tunnel vision and didn't notice.

http://preview.local.live.com/

[dhrlimited]

Not concerned

I'm not concerned about the Privacy issue, but I do think that Google could blur some of the info. Software that could identify people and blur them in the images probably exists, or could be created. Same thing with license plates.

Also, make sure the mapping and photo taking vehicles are well marked. If you see one coming, hide your face! Maybe notifications that the mapping is taking place should be posted in the local newspapers.

Other than that, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why worry about the photos?

[ABlaeser]

Not concerned?

I hear that kind of stuff all too often lately: "if you aren't doing anything wrong, why worry".
Shure, a man with a camera standing near my child´s playground, taking photos. But hey, the kids aren´t doing anything wrong, so why worry. Your wife/girlfriend is sunbathing in a public park (here in Europe that´s common) and a few days later you might see her photos at some obscure website, depicting more or less naked people, but hey, why worry, she´s not doing anything wrong.
My point is, there is just too much room for fraudulent use of these pictures (taken without our consent!) to just relax and not worry.

[dhrlimited]

How do I get a job with Google

I'm a semi-retired IT professional. How do I get a job driving around taking street level photos? As long as I can map the ski areas in the winter, I'm ready to go!

[Eskiegirl302]

How do you get the job?

I would think, Applying for it might be a good start!

[unknown unknown]

RE

You can goto http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/
and see what the requirements are and where to send your resume.

[BattleAce7101]

I am concerned

I am concerned and I will no longer use google products or its search engine.
Enough already!
So this is how they will get cameras on every street like they did in Britain. Let free enterprise install the cermas instead of the government.
Big Brother is still Big Brother.

[alt_bob]

Doubt any real concern

Your not using Google does nothing save hurt your access to information. Take action to stop the government from doing what you do not want it to do. Do not relect your representatives until one gets in that gets the will of his people and contct them of your needs and wants. Not using an info resource of public records that Google has alerted you to will not so anything to represnt your concern or halt the invsion.

[wsuschmitt]

It's a public area...

What is the big problem here? News cameras have shot scenes found in public areas and then broadcast them, tourists are taking pictures in public area and posting them to flickr, satellites are taking pictures of your house and so are people taking aerial photos... this is a world of information; all Google is doing is making it easier for others to get that information.
As time goes on, information is flowing faster and faster. One either accepts that or gets off the grid...

[okkent]

Jeez people, nothing new

Google isn't posting something that we can't see already. Sure, it is saving moments in time that would otherwise be lost to the hole of unobserved history, but we should all take precautions if we don't want to be "caught"

[ReVeLaTeD]

Exactly

The ones yelling about their privacy being violated are the ones I'd be most suspect about. Why are you so nervous if you're not doing anything wrong? Like the guy that was ditching work - newsflash dude, cameras have been around for years. The police have cameras all over the place, satellites have been taking pictures for the longest time, and quite frankly anyone can catch you in the act of anything. It's YOUR fault, don't try to blame Google for doing what everyone else has been doing for years.

I like this view, I just wish it were in more areas. But then I'm not paranoid about its usage; I mean so what? I'm not doing anything criminal and it's not like it's in your house or anything. That's where your privacy begins and ends - INSIDE YOUR PROPERTY. Everything else is fair game unless otherwise stated.

[liam04uk]

1984?

George Orwell 1984 anyone?

[Professor Cornbread]

Domestic Wire Tapping?

Our current administration is doing a far better job at making our country into an Orwell-inspired state than Google.

[mattumanu]

Honest question. Have you read the book?

The point of Orwell's book wasn't the idea of being watched, but rather the people being linguistically disabled. In 'newspeak', there were no words for concepts like "freedom", so even if it bothered people that they were being watched, they couldn't protest because they had no language for it.

[Jake Leone]

Google has been doing awefull/evil things for years

Google has been evil for years, we have just been ignoring it or haven't pieced together the company's history in our collective consciousness.

I first heard about Google when I watch a 60 minute program on privacy and the internet several years ago, way before the IPO.

Google had just acquired the rights to the Usenet. Google them promptly put up every post, without blinking an eye. Not a thought was given about being sensitive to people, for example what about people crying out for help with an abusing spouse? That's recorded forever and on display everywhere...

...No thanks to Google.

Then there was the massive amount of personal information that google proudly displays, no thought at all about peoples privacy. BUT when one of the Google founders was also Googled, and people found his address...and other sensitive information, lawyers were brought in to suppress the information.

...2-faced privacy policies, no thanks to Google

Google introduced sattelite maps. So now every burglar can scope out who's likely rich and who's not. Where's the best escape route... How to get into your house. Not even a thought about privacy,

...Again, no thanks to Google

Google acquires YouTube. YouTube, another company that could care less about privacy or copyright laws. Google only acquires the company because YouTube has the largest customer base, ethics be dammed.

Google gets sued for One Billion dollars by people concerned about the infringement on their copyrights. Only then does Google realize, we could lose Billion or more dollars. So they slowly start a process of digital id'ing material on YouTube.

...Greed without a thought about the consequences, brought to you via Google.

...Organized stealing, brought to you by Google and it's proxies.

So is it any surprize that Google now wants to take a photo of you and post it on the internet?

Why doesn't Google start posting all Medical Records?

Why doesn't Google start posting all credit reports?

Why doesn't Google start posting all driving records?

...

Oh, don't worry, they already have that information, and they are working on posting it to the Internet as soon as the right government is purchased.

[Professor Cornbread]

Google provides information already available

Google provides information already available, but in an easy-to-use format. This is especially true with the Google Maps and Earth:

"...Google introduced sattelite maps. So now every burglar can scope out who's likely rich and who's not. Where's the best escape route... How to get into your house. Not even a thought about privacy..."

Satellite maps have been around for a while, remember TerraServer? You can drive by a house and judge if the occupants are rich, you don't need an aerial shot to do so. And as for scoping out a house via satellite rather than on foot...any criminal doing that is pretty stupid.

Google's mapping interface is one of the most powerful tools...I have found directions (its default function of course), planned vacations, used its API to geolocate blog posts while traveling, projects for classes/studies, for my job...I have never heard of a documented use of Google Maps for criminal purposes.

[sjsobol]

Ummmm... Google purchased DejaNews and their Usenet archive... the Usenet content that was archived at the time of purchase had ALREADY BEEN ARCHIVED by DejaNews.

[Mapper99]

So Strange...

Is it legal to take pictures of a playground or a park? I guess they are public places...just doesn't seem right. Check out this huge list of Google Street View sightings here:

http://streetviewgallery.corank.com

[rich966]

Out in public

If you are in a Street View or Google Earth image, then that means you were already outside, in public, and anyone could take a picture of you, or watch what you are doing and report it to someone else. I don't understand why everyone is making a big deal that their picture was taken while they were out in public. Just like how Google's privacy policies are out in public.

Google has very clearly stated that they will keep your information away from anyone else, they just want to use it to better their products and services.

[gggg sssss]

subpoena

they will keep it away until some lawyer or gestapo trooper comes along with a writ. Suddenly your ex wife's lawyer can find you in a park with her sister. nothing quotes wrong quotes with that, but now you need a lawyer too. Next year when the committe on unamerican activities comes back in vogue, the photo of you on the street corner talking to the commie suddenly surfaces. Wait till face recognition software becomes cheap enough.

Don't say I didnt tell you so.

[Professor Cornbread]

Fired over a cup of coffee?

Any company who fires a worker for taking 15 mins to get a cup of coffee should take a serious look at its priorities...

[lowenbrau212]

Probably not true

I doubt thats true at all, Cnet probably made it up. Its just more exaggerated garbage from Cnet. Cnet and Wired magazine make up, exaggerate and flat lie about allot of things to make their stories more interesting so you will come back to the site more often.

[jones_8099]

Wasn't fired.

If you read the article it doesn't say the worker was fired it say
his mother was surprised he wasn't fired. Most companies have
coffee makers in the office so leaving the office could be a
fireable offense if it happens enough. Also what if this guy is in
the habit of taking say eight 15min coffee breaks a day all
before lunch? That sounds like a guy that need to be fired.

Note: I am not saying the guy should be fired I an just trying to
make a point. Getting a cup of coffee is hardly a reason to leave
the office during the work day, unless it is authorized.

[bobcode]

peopleless, carless

They should remove the people and cars from the maps, like the cloudless earth arial map. It'll be private, and better.

[Dr_Zinj]

The Expectation of Privacy

Unfortunatly, some of the commentary here shows an appalling lack of understanding. Just because cameras have been around for years doesn't mean that everyone in the world has 24 hour access to your life. A hard copy still photograph captures an instance in time and normally has a limited audience, unless it gets posted to the evening news or the papers. And news photographers tend to be readily noticeable and therefor avoidable while in public. Unless you are a public personality, like Paris Hilton or G.W. Bush, you have a justifiable expectation of anonymity even while in public. With ever present web cams and people snapping pictures and posting them on the web, that anonymity is rapidly disappearing, but the expectations still remain.

It's doubtful that we will be able to return to a de facto condition of anonymity; so we will have to either adjust our behaviors, or change our standards of expectations of acceptability. Arthur C. Clarke's novel, "The Light of Other Days", presents a fascinating vision of what a worldwide society would look like with the total absence of privacy; as well as some of the threats people face during the emergence of such a condition.

[spm82]

Expectations

"Unless you are a public personality, like Paris Hilton or G.W. Bush, you have a justifiable expectation of anonymity even while in public."
Why is the "average" person justified in expecting their privacy, while celebrities are not?

Especially now, in a world where Reality Television and YouTube have blurred the line between public figures and the common man and hordes of people will file lawsuits in order to get their 15 minutes, it is quite apparent that everyone should be prepared to be a possible topic of conversation or at least a minor subject of attention.

[bobby_brady]

Some people are naughty and do stupid things

They just don't want the world to know that. It really a moral issue within their own self, not with Goggle.

[FutureGuy]

context!!!

If someone sees a picture of a person walking out of a strip club what would they think? What would you think? He might be a contractor there to fix something, a picture on google of him in that situation would do justice.

[inachu]

Not at all

If you happen to be in a wheat field with your wife and her passion kicks in.

This is open land.
If you show it then it will be seen.
If you don't want it to be shown then why do it?

The only use for google earth is for drunk men looking for nude beaches.

[HaveSomeTea]

StreetView - It's like the average joe's Paparazzi!

Yeah Paris Hilton, we can have it too!!

[Pete Bardo]

The FBI and CIA can do it!

It's true, we are on camera most of the day. It's just that we haven't been able to see the photos until now. If the FBI and the CIA can view these images, thank God and Google we can see the stuff now too.

Google didn't put the eye in the sky--we did.

[jmimperial]

Is googling creeping you out?

I'm more creeped out with microsoft on how they are shoving off if not taking over the competitor with government backed laws. This is one of them. Spreading paranoia is like CIA stuff and thats creepy!

[rwellinghurst]

Most misunderstand "privacy"

It seems that the comments in this article and the resulting feedback items reflect what is sadly all too common. The last two generations, ?X and Y?, just did not get classes in American History and ?Civics? or failed to pay attention if they did. ?Privacy? ends when we leave the comfort of our home and enter the public areas of the world; which is just about everywhere outside the home, doctor?s office and the confessional. What we do in public is fair game. And do not even begin to bring up the constitution, our found fathers were worried about troops coming into their homes not who might see them at the race track on a work day. So get use to it folks, the same video camera we might complain about today is the one we will want used if we are mugged tonight and the next photo of a cute dog we take might have someone in it that has snuck off from work.

I cannot help but wonder if all of this concern for privacy isn?t just the reflection of a guilty conscience.

[Eskiegirl302]

Yah But...

With this street map thing, you can actually see right in the windows of peoples houses! Now if your in your home, and your walking around naked or entertaining people or something, everyone can see that. I call that invasion of privacy. And don't tell me to keep the curtains closed either. My house is my house and there are laws on the books about people looking into your windows!

[btljooz]

What ever happened to...

Laws [b][u]AGAINST[/u][/b] [i]Peeping Toms[/i]?????? EH? ?:|