4 ms·

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

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.)

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.)