Google Maps - Street View - Invasion of Privacy

Conology

I would like to remove the view of my house from Google maps Street view as I am concerned about security of my house.

Can anyone advise how to go about having it removed, ??

and secondly - why and how does Google have the right to post videos of every house without the consent of the owners ??

Thank you

Pro Hoc Vice

Contact Google. Can you explain to me what is private about a photograph of the outside of a house which is visible to anyone who walks on the street.

Conology

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Contact Google. Can you explain to me what is private about a photograph of the outside of a house which is visible to anyone who walks on the street.

Walking down the street and looking into my garden is one thing.
Taking photographs or videos of my home and placing it on the Internet for everyone to see (without my permission ) is a totally different issue.

Pro Hoc Vice

Conology wrote: »

Walking down the street and looking into my garden is one thing.
Taking photographs or videos of my home and placing it on the Internet for everyone to see (without my permission ) is a totally different issue.

The question is not what you or I think its what the law and the Courts decide. As I said contact Google ask them to remove it and if you have an issue you can contact the Data Protection Commissioner.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Google-Streetview-reporting-images/1093.htm

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/FAQ-Streetview/923.htm

Sheldons Brain

If I am a tourist and I photograph Merrion Square and put it on my travel blog, I don't have to get permission from all of the property owners if they photograph was taken on the public road.

Kenny Logins

Conology wrote: »

I would like to remove the view of my house from Google maps Street view as I am concerned about security of my house.

Can anyone advise how to go about having it removed, ??

and secondly - why and how does Google have the right to post videos of every house without the consent of the owners ??

Thank you

To be fair, anyone can walk or drive past your house at any time and see it in the present tense. A few photos from 2011 or whatever isn't really going to do much harm.

It's all explained here, including the application for removal of images.

http://www.google.ie/maps/about/behind-the-scenes/streetview/privacy/#streetview

Conology

I know Google can take down the image when requested, but my question is more general about where ( in law ) Google has the right to post the images without permission, or is it simply that there is "No Law " against it ??

Manach

When a member of the public takes a photo, there is no commercial gain there of and not part of a deliberate attempt to invade privacy. However Google are an enterprise and are using such to make money. Hence the use of the house's image as part of data mining operation is of interest. Especially germane considering the use of Google Maps by the Revenue, who have permission to do so by the DPC as it is one of the exceptions allowed under the data directive, offhand in Section 8(b) derogations.

cnocbui

Conology wrote: »

Walking down the street and looking into my garden is one thing.
Taking photographs or videos of my home and placing it on the Internet for everyone to see (without my permission ) is a totally different issue.

You have got to be kidding. Your 'different issue' amounts to an assertion that homeowners should have complete control over images of their house, even when taken from a public place.

If RTE shot some footage outside your house with it appearing in the background, do you really think you should have a veto over it being broadcast?

Quite a few tourists visit Ireland every year and probably most of them take photographs. Many might post them on the internet, mentioning where they were taken. Your argument would prevent them doing so if someones house happened to be in the background.

Do you want a veto over satellite imagery as well - which can clearly view your backyard, not just the front of your house? Good luck with that.

Kenny Logins

Conology wrote: »

I know Google can take down the image when requested, but my question is more general about where ( in law ) Google has the right to post the images without permission, or is it simply that there is "No Law " against it ??

I think the laws are to protect individuals, and not property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_concerns

whomitconcerns

from a judge in the US where a PA couple sued google. It sums it up nicely

"While it is easy to imagine that many whose property appears on Google's virtual maps resent the privacy implications, it is hard to believe that any – other than the most exquisitely sensitive – would suffer shame or humiliation,"

Conology

whomitconcerns wrote: »

from a judge in the US where a PA couple sued google. It sums it up nicely

Yes - but pse continue the rest of that useful piece shown on Wiki

"Since then the decision was reversed in part and on December 1, 2010 Magistrate Judge Bissoon ruled that Google is an intentional trespasser[12]..... .Some cities in the United States where all streets are privately owned have asked Google to remove Street View images because their consent was not given. North Oaks, Minnesota may have been the first. In that case, Google complied." Is that also "exquisitely sensitive " ??

read down further - the same Wiki article states
"A recent demand from the European Union would require Google to warn local residents before sending out the cameras. It also requires Google to keep the not blurred versions of the photos no longer than 6 months, instead of a year. Google was instructed to give advance notice online and in the local press before photographing./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]21[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc
In 2010, Google announced that it might cancel Google Street View service in the European Union due to unmanageable requests of the European Commission./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]22[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc The Data Protection Directive says that digital information about identifiable people should not be published on the internet without consent from those people."

Pro Hoc Vice

Conology wrote: »

I know Google can take down the image when requested, but my question is more general about where ( in law ) Google has the right to post the images without permission, or is it simply that there is "No Law " against it ??

In Law you usually have a right to do something unless the law says otherwise there is no law against it, then its not usually unlawful, any other way would be mental. If you are unhappy you can request a TD to bring a bill to the Dail.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/9BD14182C49347BE8025713300410C9C

"Conclusions:

I am satisfied that the taking of video footage of the hedge and in so doing the front of the accused’s house is not an act which constitutes an unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy as contended by Mr O’Higgins. First of all, it is obvious that the front of the accused’s house is something which is visible from the public road – perhaps only with the use of a ladder, but nonetheless visible. It is certainly visible from the upstairs of the house opposite, from which the footage was taken. In my view there is no meaningful distinction between the evidence of what was happening to the hedge in the garden opposite that house being given in the form of video footage, and that very same evidence being given by the owner of the house opposite if he arranged things so that he was standing at the same window as the camera was set up at and observing himself what was happening. He would undoubtedly be permitted to give evidence viva voce of anything which he observed happening in the garden into which he was looking, and it could not possibly be seriously contended that if that person also saw the accused re-entering his house through the front door, and while the door was open saw also into the hallway, that in some way that person had breached the accused’s right to privacy by seeing what he saw. The camera has done no more and no less than that.

Of course, a different view might easily be taken if the act of setting up the camera in the required position involved a trespass upon the property of the person to be observed. That is a different matter altogether. But that is not the position in this case. The point was made by Mr O’Higgins that this camera in the way it was set up had the capacity to see into rooms at the front of the accused’s house if the curtains were open. But in my view the problem with that submission is that the same arises if a person were to place himself at the window opposite and in the event that the owner happened to leave the curtains open."

Pro Hoc Vice

Conology wrote: »

Yes - but pse continue the rest of that useful piece shown on Wiki

"Since then the decision was reversed in part and on December 1, 2010 Magistrate Judge Bissoon ruled that Google is an intentional trespasser[12]..... .Some cities in the United States where all streets are privately owned have asked Google to remove Street View images because their consent was not given. North Oaks, Minnesota may have been the first. In that case, Google complied." Is that also "exquisitely sensitive " ??

read down further - the same Wiki article states
"A recent demand from the European Union would require Google to warn local residents before sending out the cameras. It also requires Google to keep the not blurred versions of the photos no longer than 6 months, instead of a year. Google was instructed to give advance notice online and in the local press before photographing./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]21[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc
In 2010, Google announced that it might cancel Google Street View service in the European Union due to unmanageable requests of the European Commission./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]22[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc The Data Protection Directive says that digital information about identifiable people should not be published on the internet without consent from those people."

1 its the USA and 2 its wiki.

Conology

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

1 its the USA and 2 its wiki.

I appreciate both points - but its still interesting.
I don't think my local TD is back from the Galway races yet :)

Pro Hoc Vice

Conology wrote: »

I appreciate both points - but its still interesting.
I don't think my local TD is back from the Galway races yet :)

I accept it is an area that is in flux, but my own view is that when all the cases die down common sense will prevail. BTW everyon has more than one TD.

whomitconcerns

Conology wrote: »

Yes - but pse continue the rest of that useful piece shown on Wiki

"Since then the decision was reversed in part and on December 1, 2010 Magistrate Judge Bissoon ruled that Google is an intentional trespasser[12]..... .Some cities in the United States where all streets are privately owned have asked Google to remove Street View images because their consent was not given. North Oaks, Minnesota may have been the first. In that case, Google complied." Is that also "exquisitely sensitive " ??

read down further - the same Wiki article states
"A recent demand from the European Union would require Google to warn local residents before sending out the cameras. It also requires Google to keep the not blurred versions of the photos no longer than 6 months, instead of a year. Google was instructed to give advance notice online and in the local press before photographing./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]21[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc
In 2010, Google announced that it might cancel Google Street View service in the European Union due to unmanageable requests of the European Commission./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]22[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc The Data Protection Directive says that digital information about identifiable people should not be published on the internet without consent from those people."

Well the Telegraph actually http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/4695714/Couple-who-sued-Google-over-Street-View-photos-of-home-lose-privacy-case.html
But thats not important...the sentiment is..

Oh and from reading your wiki article they were awarded 1 dollar. Hardly a rousing endorsement

Conology

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Well the Telegraph actually http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/4695714/Couple-who-sued-Google-over-Street-View-photos-of-home-lose-privacy-case.html
But thats not important...the sentiment is..

Oh and from reading your wiki article they were awarded 1 dollar. Hardly a rousing endorsement

Its the point of law I'm interested in , not the award really,
Pro Hoc Vice - sums it up best for me in http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0...25713300410C9C - thank you Pro Hoc Vice.

the world wonders

cnocbui wrote: »

Quite a few tourists visit Ireland every year and probably most of them take photographs. Many might post them on the internet, mentioning where they were taken. Your argument would prevent them doing so if someones house happened to be in the background.

I would argue that there is a qualitative not just a quantitative difference between a private individual taking a few personal photos and a giant for-profit corporation maintaining a photographic database of every home and business in an entire country.

That said, the optouts and safeguards that Google have put in place, such as blurring faces and license plates, seem to have satisfied the Data Protection Commissioner.

For the OP, the DPC have specific instructions on how to request blurring of your house on street view.

whomitconcerns

Conology wrote: »

Its the point of law I'm interested in , not the award really,
Pro Hoc Vice - sums it up best for me in http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0...25713300410C9C - thank you Pro Hoc Vice.

Interesting case...Its a developing area..Good luck either way if you decide to do something.

Kenny Logins

Conology wrote: »

Its the point of law I'm interested in , not the award really,
Pro Hoc Vice - sums it up best for me in http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0...25713300410C9C - thank you Pro Hoc Vice.

That's continuous video, and a genuine privacy concern.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Hi Conology,

As matter of interest, what exactly is the security concern? Another poster asked you the same question but you didn't answer the question.

I'd be interested in any other posters opinions on the security aspect (rather than the law).

Cheers.

Conology wrote: »

Walking down the street and looking into my garden is one thing.
Taking photographs or videos of my home and placing it on the Internet for everyone to see (without my permission ) is a totally different issue

Conology wrote: »

I would like to remove the view of my house from Google maps Street view as I am concerned about security of my house.

Can anyone advise how to go about having it removed, ??

and secondly - why and how does Google have the right to post videos of every house without the consent of the owners ??

Thank you

Ash.J.Williams

anyone had a look at their google maps history??? freaky stuff

RustyNut

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

anyone had a look at their google maps history??? freaky stuff

How ja do that?

Conology

the world wonders wrote: »

I would argue that there is a qualitative not just a quantitative difference between a private individual taking a few personal photos and a giant for-profit corporation maintaining a photographic database of every home and business in an entire country.
.

I agree with you in principle, but is it legal or is it not legal - that is the question, and as far as I can see "so far ??" the answer is - YES it is legal for Google to go around in their cars/vans with cameras mounted on the rooftop, in order to video your house, garden, sheds, garden furniture, and especially access to your premises, and place all that useful information, for every criminal to see if they want to.

28064212

RustyNut wrote: »

How ja do that?

https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/

RustyNut

28064212 wrote: »

https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/

Iv no history, yay for me.

Ash.J.Williams

me too....until i keep looking....and there it is!!

Conology

Damian Blue Hobo wrote: »

Hi Conology,

As matter of interest, what exactly is the security concern? Another poster asked you the same question but you didn't answer the question.

I'd be interested in any other posters opinions on the security aspect (rather than the law).

Cheers.

I'm happy that the Legal issue is clarified now - particularly by Pro Hoc Vice.

With regard to the "Security issue" - I just think that no matter how old the footage is - that a potential criminal should not have access to this kind of information as it is a very useful assistance in accumulating knowledge of an area or premises.
There are many people out there who don't even know that this facility exists - particularly elderly in remote areas, and when we don't even know that this is happening it makes it more worrying.

I'll bet that if you were to ask people in advance for permission to Film their house ( not like an RTE news programme as suggested earlier ) and place the footage on the internet, that the majority of people would not agree to allow it. That's just my opinion.

Personally, I like the facility itself. It's a very useful service provided by Google and if they can profit from it - good luck to them, but there must be a better way for Google to provide the service without having to show so much access to such private property. I have no doubt they're working on it as we speak as I would think it's an on-going issue for them.

Victor

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If I am a tourist and I photograph Merrion Square and put it on my travel blog, I don't have to get permission from all of the property owners if they photograph was taken on the public road.

In fairness, your blog is hardly going to give the NSA the face of everyone in the country, every vehicle registration and the location of both in a nice compact database.

Kenny Logins

Victor wrote: »

In fairness, your blog is hardly going to give the NSA the face of everyone in the country, every vehicle registration and the location of both in a nice compact database.

Google obscures faces and registration numbers automatically.

irish gent

Funny I saw a house blurred out on a street in london ?

Victor

cnocbui wrote: »

You have got to be kidding. Your 'different issue' amounts to an assertion that homeowners should have complete control over images of their house, even when taken from a public place.

Not all Google Street View footage is shot from the public road and some of it is intrusive. I reported an image which was taken from a petrol station, that looked over the wall (the cameras are mounted on tripods on top of the cars) into someone's garden and into their living room.

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Google obscures faces and registration numbers automatically.

... and gives the original to the NSA.

ArmaniJeanss

irish gent wrote: »

Funny I saw a house blurred out on a street in london ?

Some in Ireland as well. The Dundon family home in Limerick.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.652872,-8.625745,3a,75y,290.47h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7RoOKBMsamt_96g9eFW1oA!2e0

hullaballoo

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Some in Ireland as well. The Dundon family home in Limerick.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.652872,-8.625745,3a,75y,290.47h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7RoOKBMsamt_96g9eFW1oA!2e0

Quite a few in that area blurred out!

MarkR

It's on their website, how to remove it.

http://www.google.ie/maps/about/behind-the-scenes/streetview/privacy/

Reporting Issues
Request further blurring of a specific image

We provide easily accessible tools allowing users to request further blurring of any image that features the user, their family, their car or their home. In addition to the automatic blurring of faces and license plates, we will blur the entire car, house, or person when a user makes this request for additional blurring. Users can also request the removal of images that feature inappropriate content (for example: nudity or violence).

How to report a concern

If you've found an image that you would like further blurred, or an image that you believe contains objectionable content, just follow these steps
Locate the image in Street View.
Click "Report a problem" in the bottom-right of the image window.
Complete the form and click "Submit".
That's it. We'll review your report promptly.

I am curious, what information about the exterior of your house is of benefit to a criminal? What exactly are your concerns?

I'm actually visible on google maps. No, i'm not that fat. I was moving into my current house, and you can see me parking the moving van outside. I'm waiting for hollywood to call now.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

barman linen

Typing an exact address in Google now gives you a snapshot of the home...no need anymore to drag that little orange fella. Helps nosey people see what your home is like.

goz83

Blurring out the house might make the criminals curious

I personally think it's a bit of a push to say that this is a real privacy breach. f you're snapped while starkers on your front lawn, Google will blur your wrinkly ass out of the image anyway.

KTRIC

An entire street I used to live on in an affluent area in Munich is inaccessible and blurred on google maps.

Dial Hard

People are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think criminals are spending days scouring Google street view looking for houses that just happen to take their fancy. the fact of the matter is that if your house looks like a viable target for any reason, the criminals in your area are already well aware of it, and its presence (or lack thereof) on Google is noy going to encourage or deter them in any way.

You'd swear there'd never been a burglary in Ireland before Google came along...

Brian Lighthouse

Try street view on any German address and see what happens.

Marcusm

Conology wrote: »

I appreciate both points - but its still interesting.
I don't think my local TD is back from the Galway races yet :)

The roads were private - did you miss that part? The analysis is going to be different.

Lantus

why does the OP believe that street view poses a security risk when any car or pedestrian can get a better view by going thee in person?

If I was a criminal intent on invading property then a blocked out picture would immediately get my interest. Anything people want to go out of their way to hide would make me interested in what that could be. Let people do this. The more their property sticks out and gets talked about and publicised the less chance thee is of my property being a target by blending into mediocrity.

If his security is that bad then do a security review and improve the locks, windows, doors etc, put in CCTV, get attack dogs. Street view?? phhhttt.