3 ms·

Google threatens to pull Street View from Switzerland

18 points by ssclafani 15y ago

VengefulCynic 15y ago
The article seems to imply that the Swiss authorities want Google to use a manual blurring technique instead of automating the process (rather than in addition to). If that's the case, I'd be hard-pressed to explain how the Swiss privacy watchdog would think that human-operated blurring would lead to a better than 99% success rate.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  You don't have to explain it, because they don't.
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    I don't get the downvotes, but whatever. Is it really hard to believe that the watchdog group in question really hasn't considered that there is a difference between "blurring 100% of faces" and "blurring is performed manually?" It's likely they think that, if you force Google to perform manual blurring, then every face they photograph will be blurred. It's even more likely we've already thought about this issue far more than they have.
- ugh 15y ago
  Whenever you read something that’s obviously stupid about legal matters you should assume that the messenger is to blame, especially when said messenger is unable to link to the publicly available and easily findable text of the opinion. (http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009 http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009, German) There are many places in this opinion where it is made very clear that the automatic process is not good enough and that additional diligence is necessary to protect the right of publicity of the photographed in a satisfactory way. Here is one example: „Vielmehr wären allfällige Persönlichkeitsverletzungen vermeidbar, würden aber einen finanziellen Mehraufwand für die Beklagten nach sich ziehen, weil sie die Bilder teilweise manuell unkenntlich machen müssten.“ (Violations of the right of publicity are avoidable but would lead to additional costs for the defendant because the photos would have to be manually blurred to some extent. This is in section 10.4.6. which considers the violations of the right of publicity and Google’s economic interests.) By the way, this is not the Swiss authorities talking, this is a Swiss court.
bzupnick 15y ago
how is google streets LEGAL anywhere? i mean, you need a load of permits to get a video camera in an office, let alone take pictures of every inch of america, switzerland, and other countries, and post it online
lpolovets 15y ago
The word "threaten" in the headline is misleading. If someone said "you can't do X unless you pay me 100 billion dollars", then replying with, "well, I guess I won't do X" is not a threat -- it's just a matter-of-fact declaration. The Swiss government is asking Google for an unreasonable amount of work in order for Street View to be allowed in Switzerland, and Google is saying they won't be able to comply because the request is, after all, unreasonable. That's all there is to it.
- wccrawford 15y ago
  In this case, they are taking something away that was already granted, though. They are saying they will take their toy and go home if the Swiss government doesn't do things their way. That -is- a threat. (Although possibly one the Swiss government doesn't care about.) I happen to think the Swiss government is correct here, too. Privacy is a very real concern these days. I know there are some places where it is illegal to use someone's face commercially without written permission and they have to blur them out... Why should this be any different? Google has a service they are providing that isn't following that.
- ugh 15y ago
  The court is, by the way, aware of that. They write in their opinion (http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009 http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009, German) that Google’s ability to offer Street View in Switzerland is in this case immaterial to their decision. The right to publicity is more important. They specifically say that Google is, for example, free to charge users of Street View for access if they are unable to offer the service for free. The amount of work is only unreasonable in the framework of Google’s business model. (I personally think that the algorithmic review is good enough, at least in this case, but I also think that this view probably doesn’t square with the law in Switzerland as it currently stands. Lobbyists, no lawyers, are needed.)
guelo 15y ago
More interesting to me was the info about Google using Street View cars to collect wifi access point data. Makes total sense but I did not know they did this.
- cstuder 15y ago
  Did you really miss all the discussions and hearings last year about them accidently recording some WLAN traffic as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View#Privacy_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View#Privacy_issu... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-...
  - guelo 15y ago
    I really did. Looks like it was much more of a European concern which would explain why I didn't hear about it.
ars 15y ago
Why do they want them to blur license plate number? What's the big deal about those?
- ugh 15y ago
  They make it possible to identify someone (with some degree of precision). Swiss law defines personal data as „alle Angaben, die sich auf eine bestimmte oder bestimmbare Person beziehen” (all information that refers to a specific or determinable person), license plates clearly fall under this defintion. Usually, personal data cannot be collected. The law names three exceptions: 1. Consent 2. Predominant private or public interest 3. A law In this case, the court looked at the exceptions (especially the second one) and determined whether Google’s collection of personal data falls under them.
- mkuhn 15y ago
  In Switzerland it is simple to search which license plate number is registered to whom [1]. Which makes license plates as bad as faces when it comes to personally identifiable information. [1] http://www.stva.zh.ch/internet/sicherheitsdirektion/stva/de/StVAfz/FZindex/FZeindex.html http://www.stva.zh.ch/internet/sicherheitsdirektion/stva/de/...
  - ugh 15y ago
    I didn’t even know that. I think that independent of that, license plates would be personal information even without a central database. There is no central database of faces yet they are still clearly personal information. License plates are similarly associated with one person (or, unlike faces, a few people).
c1sc0 15y ago
Privacy has traditionally been taken very seriously in Switzerland due to the Swiss' love of financial privacy. As far as I know it's one of the few countries where the right to privacy is defined in the constitution.

18 points by ssclafani 15y ago

The article seems to imply that the Swiss authorities want Google to use a manual blurring technique instead of automating the process (rather than in addition to). If that's the case, I'd be hard-pressed to explain how the Swiss privacy watchdog would think that human-operated blurring would lead to a better than 99% success rate.

bluedanieru 15y ago
You don't have to explain it, because they don't.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  I don't get the downvotes, but whatever. Is it really hard to believe that the watchdog group in question really hasn't considered that there is a difference between "blurring 100% of faces" and "blurring is performed manually?" It's likely they think that, if you force Google to perform manual blurring, then every face they photograph will be blurred. It's even more likely we've already thought about this issue far more than they have.
ugh 15y ago
Whenever you read something that’s obviously stupid about legal matters you should assume that the messenger is to blame, especially when said messenger is unable to link to the publicly available and easily findable text of the opinion. (http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009 http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009, German) There are many places in this opinion where it is made very clear that the automatic process is not good enough and that additional diligence is necessary to protect the right of publicity of the photographed in a satisfactory way. Here is one example: „Vielmehr wären allfällige Persönlichkeitsverletzungen vermeidbar, würden aber einen finanziellen Mehraufwand für die Beklagten nach sich ziehen, weil sie die Bilder teilweise manuell unkenntlich machen müssten.“ (Violations of the right of publicity are avoidable but would lead to additional costs for the defendant because the photos would have to be manually blurred to some extent. This is in section 10.4.6. which considers the violations of the right of publicity and Google’s economic interests.) By the way, this is not the Swiss authorities talking, this is a Swiss court.

bzupnick 15y ago

how is google streets LEGAL anywhere? i mean, you need a load of permits to get a video camera in an office, let alone take pictures of every inch of america, switzerland, and other countries, and post it online

lpolovets 15y ago

The word "threaten" in the headline is misleading. If someone said "you can't do X unless you pay me 100 billion dollars", then replying with, "well, I guess I won't do X" is not a threat -- it's just a matter-of-fact declaration. The Swiss government is asking Google for an unreasonable amount of work in order for Street View to be allowed in Switzerland, and Google is saying they won't be able to comply because the request is, after all, unreasonable. That's all there is to it.

wccrawford 15y ago
In this case, they are taking something away that was already granted, though. They are saying they will take their toy and go home if the Swiss government doesn't do things their way. That -is- a threat. (Although possibly one the Swiss government doesn't care about.) I happen to think the Swiss government is correct here, too. Privacy is a very real concern these days. I know there are some places where it is illegal to use someone's face commercially without written permission and they have to blur them out... Why should this be any different? Google has a service they are providing that isn't following that.
ugh 15y ago
The court is, by the way, aware of that. They write in their opinion (http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009 http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009, German) that Google’s ability to offer Street View in Switzerland is in this case immaterial to their decision. The right to publicity is more important. They specifically say that Google is, for example, free to charge users of Street View for access if they are unable to offer the service for free. The amount of work is only unreasonable in the framework of Google’s business model. (I personally think that the algorithmic review is good enough, at least in this case, but I also think that this view probably doesn’t square with the law in Switzerland as it currently stands. Lobbyists, no lawyers, are needed.)

guelo 15y ago

More interesting to me was the info about Google using Street View cars to collect wifi access point data. Makes total sense but I did not know they did this.

cstuder 15y ago
Did you really miss all the discussions and hearings last year about them accidently recording some WLAN traffic as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View#Privacy_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View#Privacy_issu... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-...
- guelo 15y ago
  I really did. Looks like it was much more of a European concern which would explain why I didn't hear about it.

ars 15y ago

Why do they want them to blur license plate number? What's the big deal about those?

ugh 15y ago
They make it possible to identify someone (with some degree of precision). Swiss law defines personal data as „alle Angaben, die sich auf eine bestimmte oder bestimmbare Person beziehen” (all information that refers to a specific or determinable person), license plates clearly fall under this defintion. Usually, personal data cannot be collected. The law names three exceptions: 1. Consent 2. Predominant private or public interest 3. A law In this case, the court looked at the exceptions (especially the second one) and determined whether Google’s collection of personal data falls under them.
mkuhn 15y ago
In Switzerland it is simple to search which license plate number is registered to whom [1]. Which makes license plates as bad as faces when it comes to personally identifiable information. [1] http://www.stva.zh.ch/internet/sicherheitsdirektion/stva/de/StVAfz/FZindex/FZeindex.html http://www.stva.zh.ch/internet/sicherheitsdirektion/stva/de/...
- ugh 15y ago
  I didn’t even know that. I think that independent of that, license plates would be personal information even without a central database. There is no central database of faces yet they are still clearly personal information. License plates are similarly associated with one person (or, unlike faces, a few people).

c1sc0 15y ago

Privacy has traditionally been taken very seriously in Switzerland due to the Swiss' love of financial privacy. As far as I know it's one of the few countries where the right to privacy is defined in the constitution.