Google has once again managed to stir up debate about the existence of privacy in our highly connected culture as it argues that the "No Trespassing" sign in your front yard is just for show.
Back in April, a Pittsburgh couple sued Google for driving up a private road, taking pictures of their house, then posting them for the world to see with Google Maps' Street View feature. At the time, Google argued that pictures and other details of the house were already on the Internet due to its previous sale listing. The company was also quick to point out that the couple compounded the attention drawn to the photos it took by filing a lawsuit instead of using Google's tools for requesting a removal of the images.
The debate centered around an "opt-in or opt-out" conundrum. In this media-rich society where anyone can snap a photo with a free mobile phone and instantly share it with the world, is it the responsibility of companies like Google to prevent unauthorized content from leaking onto its services? Or is an (ideally) effective set of content removal policies and tools enough, and we all just have to roll with the punches as they come?
More complaints surfacing against Google's persistent Street View cars appear to side with the former view, especially when Google is funding the data collection and has control over how it's done.
"It isn't just a privacy issue; it is a trespassing issue with their own photos as evidence," Betty Webb, a Humboldt County, CA, resident told The Press Democrat. Webb and residents of other counties like Sonoma are complaining now that Google's drivers have flat-out ignored over one hundred private roads, "No Trespassing" signs, and at least one barking watchdog in their quest to photograph roads and homes.
A Google spokesperson advised users upset about images that they believe shouldn't be on Street View can use the "report inappropriate image" link. "After verification, the image will be removed or a clearly identifiable face will be blurred," the spokesperson said. "If found to be inappropriate or sensitive, the image will be removed permanently. We act quickly to review and act upon imagery that users have requested to be blurred or taken down."
Another spokesperson told The Press Democrat that company policy is "to not drive on private land." Google apparently tries to hire local drivers who will know their territory and have a better chance of knowing what areas and roads are off limits to the public. One anonymous Street View driver, however, told the paper that he was simply told to "drive around" and collect images.
Some people wish Google Street View would not capture certain scenes
Google also claims that "turning around in a private driveway while photographing the exterior of a home is not a substantial intrusion."
In defending itself against the aforementioned Pittsburgh couple's lawsuit, the company has argued that "complete privacy does not exist." At various times, the company has stated that the existence of things like satellite photography means that Street View photography is just icing on the cake. Plus, UPS drivers and strangers needing to turn around are allowed to pull into people's driveways; why not Google?
Google has seen unbridled success throughout the construction of its empire on the Web, largely because of the Web's fundamental nature. It's a public forum on which individuals and businesses willingly place websites, and search engines like Google are the gatekeepers for finding those sites. Sometimes, a site owner doesn't want their creation to be indexed by Google, and there are very simple tools for turning away its indexing bots. Now site owners may still invite whomever they choose to visit the site and grant authorized access through various methods. But when these tools are put in place, Google doesn't crawl the site, and its owner can sleep a little better knowing that Google respected their digital privacy.
In the real world, things like private roads and trespassing signs serve the same purpose as the tools Google provides for turning away its indexing robots; they are opt-out mechanisms from an earlier age. Forcing people to build a private road, erect a sign, and then still use some online tools to have the pictures pulled (after already being available to the world) seems unduly burdensome on a common-sense level, and it has little to do with whether a stranger pulls into your driveway simply in order to turn around. What the courts will conclude, however, remains in doubt. A Google spokesperson reiterated for Ars the search giant's position that the Pittsburgh couple's lawsuit is "without merit" and called the couple's decision to head to court "unfortunate."
As more of these Street View complaints bring Google's practices into the spotlight, it's becoming clear that people will cling tenaciously to their privacy, whether or not Google believes it to be an illusion.
Original here
No comments:
Post a Comment