Map of the Week: Blobbed Britain
Is it true that Mullah Omar, the publicity-shy head of the Taleban, has been snapped coming out of a DIY superstore in Sheffield with a tub of tile grout? If so, it would be the only verified photograph of the reclusive Afghan.
No, I made it up. But even if he had been captured on Google's new Street View maps, their technology means that his face would have been automatically blurred.
My Map of the Week this week provides a picture of British life in soft focus.
So assiduous is the tool that even the face in the Bobby Sands mural in Belfast has also been obscured.
The Manchester United star Cristiano Ronaldo is blurred on a poster at Old Trafford - a wonderful example of what can happen when anxieties over our "surveillance society" collide with our "celebrity culture".
This is a man whose image is among the most recognisable on the planet. But on Street View, he is just another blob.
We live in a society where many people believe that fame equals fortune equals fulfilment. It was this narrative that provided the backdrop to the public life and death of Jade Goody.
Whether it be the YouTube wannabes or the reality TV hopefuls, there is a never-ending supply of people prepared to parade their lack of talent and abundance of self-belief. If only enough people could see my face, they seem to suggest, then happiness and immortality will be mine.
I suspect that if word had got out, crowds of exhibitionists would have been on the pavements to greet Google's fleet of camera cars as they toured and snapped the UK.
There is a disturbing desperation in some of those prepared to expose their weaknesses and prejudices in return for publicity. Like those kids who delight in jumping up and down and waving at my camera when I am out filming, we see grown men and women proudly humiliate themselves on any media available.
Yet, in sharp (or should I say blurry) contrast, there are those who worry our society is suffering from exposure. They demand the right to hide away, to opt out of the digital chronicle being compiled by a million cameras.
Indeed, such is the anxiety and the sense that publicity is inherently dangerous, that we obscure scenes that anyone might witness looking out of a bus.
In recent years, it has become normal to portray the lives of young people in Britain with pictures of their footwear. BBC Television is not alone in concluding that it is often wise to disguise the identities of children walking home from school by focusing on their scuffed trainers.
When far-off historians come to study the early 21st century, they may speculate on Britain's curious foot fetish.
I do understand that there is a responsibility on publishers and broadcasters to protect the vulnerable, but is there not a middle ground between intrusive long-lens shots and routine anonymising?
At a conference on youth crime I attended last week, there was a debate as to whether young offenders being interviewed about how they had turned their lives around should be routinely "blobbed".
The argument in favour is that it is impossible to know how a young person's appearance might negatively affect their life chances. However, there are those who fear that never looking into the eyes of children who have misbehaved risks turning them into a faceless monsters.
Talking of which, does it not seem curious that the mother of our democracy has reportedly decided to blob herself?
Parts of the Palace of Westminster are unavailable on Google's Street View - one presumes for "security" reasons, even though any would-be Guy Fawkes can join the thousands of tourists snapping away.
Update 1433: Three more blurred Google faces have been sent to me.
The first is a bit of Banksy graffiti in east London [see image on right].
The other two [see below] are further examples of the publicity/privacy clash.
If you find any more, do post them here - leave a comment or a link in the comments box below.
Update 1532: Another example, a grotesque in Cambridge, is highlighted by the New Scientist.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~24~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Celebrity Culture
"We live in a society where many people believe that fame equals fortune equals fulfilment."
I for one am absolutly sick and tired of these wannabe's who have less talent and brains than an organ grinders monkey being able to live the good life because stuipid people don't realises that they are paying for their lifestyle by buying the magazines and watching the T.V shows.
Youth Crime
I honestly beileve that the something for nothingness of celeb Culture adds to the problems of youth crime. If you are tought that regardless of talent or brains you can get the good life with very little effort is it any wonder young people are taking to the streets and taking what they want with a knife.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think this situation (and CCTV) is overplayed.
I don't agree with the 'if you are doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide argument' - I'm not doing anything 'wrong' in my toilet, but I have an expectation of privacy.
But on a public street? It's not so much 'am I doing something wrong' it's just that I don't have an expectation of privacy.
(Mullah Omar in Sheffield? Wouldn't be surprised. Who wants to live in a cave in Baluchistan when you can have a free council house in Sheffield. As soon as he claimed asylum, he would be perfectly safe from either the law or an American JDAM)
Complain about this comment
I remember a line from the musical Chicago (well, the film of the musical, I'm not that cultured) where Roxi Hart states
"it doesn't matter what you do if it's not on TV"
Unfortunately that seems to be the motto of a lot of peoples lives.
I feel one reason is that people see two ways to getting rich, either be extreemly good at something and work very hard, or just be a celebrity. Some young girls suggest being a WAG as a potential career choice.
As long as being seen in the public eye is more lucritive than being a scientist this will continue and people will continue to buy magazines like Hello as they are seen as 'how to' manuals of getting that lifestyle. In many ways people are like water, always taking the path of least resistance to get what they want, which is depressing as water always sinks to the lowest level which is a damning indicament of a celeb obsessed society.
Complain about this comment
It just shows, Marc, Noel Edmonds is a prophet.
He was promoting Mr Blobby long before Google came on the scene.
On a more serious note, fame and fortune do not guarantee self-fulfilment. They just bring another set of problems!
Complain about this comment
You do realise that the 'blobbing' is done automatically by pattern recognition software? There's no excess paranoia going on here - anyone who's used simple OCR software will know what a task it can be for a program to tell a B from an 8 on a scanned document. The same principle applies here - a poster or stone face is very difficult to distinguish from a real one.
Complain about this comment
heh I used to work on Benet st. in Cambridge
Why they have blacked out parliament when you buy that exact picture on a postcard or take a picture yourself beggars belief - unless we are now one of those countries where you get detained for taking pictures of public buildings...wouldn't surprise me
Complain about this comment
Sometimes removing someone's face can be a method not of protecting someone but of dehumanising them, and of using a photograph of an individual as social shorthand for a real or perceived problem represented by one aspect of their identity. The most obvious example of this in the media is the so-called 'headless fatties' which myriad outlets invariably use to illustrate their slew of stories about the obesity epidemic.
Surreptitiously captured by freelance photographers before being flogged to stock agencies such as Corbis and Getty Images, these images are almost always of the 'morbidly obese' (ie the 2-3% of the fat population used to misrepresent the 'norm') with those depicting a fat person engaging in stereotypical behaviour, such as eating fast food, watching TV or wearing untidy clothes, seeming particularly popular with editors.
The removal of the person's face is the final insult and almost an acknowledgement by the media of the morally dubious nature of using the person's image without their permission, to represent them and others like them as a social problem. Little wonder some groups are now starting 'show your face' campaigns to wrest back their fat identity from powerful interests which have misappropriated it for their own fearmongering ends.
(There's an excellent piece about the media's use of headless fatty shots to perpetuate the epi-panic model of obesity as a social, rather than individual, issue demanding official intervention and action here).
Complain about this comment
It's automatic of course, a computer does not know the differene between an image of Ronaldo or the real thing so it blurrs both.
Unfortunately this also means that some will slip through the net as well, some faces will be missed because of odd positions, backgrounds etc.
I would hope that Google does something to unblur some of the pictures though, I would hate to think of murals and statues being left disfugured in this way.
Complain about this comment
Must confess to not understanding any of this "I.T.C. systems" etc. Not even sure if I've used any of the correct terminology in ""!?
What I do know about my own situation is that I resent CCTV cameras following me around the streets as they are an intrusion into my life for which I have given no permission and never been approached to even discuss its presence. I do not believe CCTV deter crime or anti-social behaviour in any way at all: CCTV just moves it down the road. As I wrote many months ago on a previous Blog topic: There is a North London Underground Station where CCTV has virtually ended muggings, but, 600 yards down the road the number of street crimes has actually risen since CCTV was installed to 'protect' the public!
As for Google showing my person on the streets! How dare they even for a second consider that any activity by me in public going about my normal life is available for general public viewing other than by those other members of the public sharing the same streets as myself at any time of day or night? I am not a public concern, I am not an image for display, and I most certainly would never consent to being publicised across the entire Internet.
I am in short: A private Citizen. End of.
Complain about this comment
A ruddy joke. The Privacy International lot can get stuffed - how dare they say that they filed a complaint for many Britons.
Not in my name.
Complain about this comment
I realise this isn’t the main point of your article but I feel I have to make a comment about it.
I’m not sure you realise how hard it would be to make a piece of software that can reliably distinguish between a real person’s face and a face on a poster. If you would like to create a piece of software that can do that I’m sure Google and many others would be racing to purchase it from you.
Google also scans the photos for car registration plates to blank out. If you look at some of the pictures carefully you can see that the wording on some road signs (especially yellow ones) has been blurred out because they look so similar to the software.
Isn’t it better that the software blurs out too much than too little?
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the people complaining about "privacy" are the same people that will happily buy OK/Hello or any other of the celebrity obsessed rags that use Paparazzi to stalk Z-list celebs while on a public street shopping for example?
Hypocrisy is alive and well.
Complain about this comment
We are slowly creeping into being a society which the Eastern Block ran after World War Two.
Soon all photography will be banned.
It is a SERIOUS infringement of our rights.
As an independent film maker and photographer I feel
the "Authorities" and the "Annoyed.. of Birmingham, Brighton or wherever"
in the UK have won the battle.
I now plan on writing a screenplay where photographers only meet in cellars
and have secret meetings in each others apartments. Sounds familiar? Russia
under the Communists.
In the early 80s when I was in East Germany no one bothered me. I took photographs of anything I wanted as long as I didn't photograph a bridge.
Soon in England I will not be allowed to photograph anything; not even my
own nieces or nephews on the beach for fear I will be arrested.
Is that the kind of society we want to live in?
We would have had more rights under the KGB and Stalin.
Ron Taylor.
Producer/writer.
Complain about this comment
Definitely agree - this action is not in my name.
There is an important freedom and civil liberty issue underlying this - an area where we see increasing attempts for the strong and wealthy to tread on individual freedom. We have the right to see things in public places and take photos or films without being intimidated by people claiming that they have a right of privacy. I walk over Westminster Bridge many times a week and must appear in thousands of photos of Big Ben. And if some self-aggrandised VIP does not want to be seen - sorry they need to find their own island to live on because they cannot tell me which direction to point my camera.
I am very pleased with Street View - useful, illuminating, entertaining and an honest look at our city. Delighted to see that my Virginia Creeper was looking its best and the car was nicely polished. But I was slightly puzzled that the computer blurred part of my window ledge???
Complain about this comment
I quote Philip Pullman, who seems to have his head screwed on in weighing up what is happening to our country. My two penn'orth is that I liken the campaigners to those people who stop us taking photographs of our own children at school plays and the like. Street View is a bit of fun/education, CCTV cameras are the devil.
"Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don't mind if we are. They don't think we care about it.
We want to watch you day and night
We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you
We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people
We can see you have abandoned modesty
Some of our friends have seen to that
They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible
In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide
We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural
We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things
One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:
We know who our friends are
And when our friends want to have words with one of you
We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need
It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law
It is for us to know what your offence is
Angering our friends is an offence
It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
Inconceivable.
And those laws say:
Sleep, you stinking cowards
Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms
Freedom is too hard for you
We shall decide what freedom is
Sleep, you vermin
Sleep, you scum. "
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7959362.stm
After reading this I propose that we start a petition to make blindness compulsory, If we poke everyone's eyes out then all of our privacy will be guaranteed from other people walking down the street and seeing us.
Also If Google are invading our privacy, why are they not doing it to the Americans, Canadians, Dutch..... Maybe its just that we are a little oversensitive...possibly...er...?
Should the BBC be forced to blur the images of people who walk in the background of outdoor news reports, is their right not to be filmed and privacy not infringed in the same way?, what about the cyclists on the picture on the BBC news main page?
This story is frankly pathetic
Complain about this comment
I like Street View and I do not want those Privacy people acting on my behalf to stop Google's excellent service.
It would be far better if the Privacy people went after Government, NHS and other users of our personal data who lose their laptops, hard disks, memory sticks containing our personal information and thereby cause us to become victims of identity theft!
Yes, if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear!
Complain about this comment
Mullah Omar in Sheffield....
"The leader of the Taleban, Mullah Omar, is not in Pakistan's Balochistan province, a top official there says"
BBC - 7955284.stm
Do you know something we don't?
Complain about this comment
Another example is the Freddie Mercury statue outside the Dominion Theatre on Tottenham Court Road. From one of the views, Mercury's face (one of the most recognisable faces to your average Briton) is blurred out.
Complain about this comment
I find it amazing that people are not only in agreement, but positively oozing compliments over a service run by a private company presumably to make money in some way. This is a total invasion of privacy! What would these same people say if Mr. Gordon Brown had commissioned the mapping survey? I am willing to bet that this blog would be full of contributors apopleptic with rage at Govt meddling and 'Big Brother Britain'. It seems that if you're a private company, or better still, 'on the Internet', you can get away with flouting privacy, censorship and all the other rules put in to protect the public from nastiness and exploitation. Do we really want these unregulated, unelected technocrats ruling our lives? Isn't it time we stopped being so terrifed, or so in awe of 'the Internet' that we forgive it just about every sin?
Complain about this comment
I fully support Google's right to post the streetview photgraphs on the web. Despite this government's and the police attempts to restrict photography in this country, it is still not illegal to take photographs in a public place and the street is a public place.
Complain about this comment
Mark, this story just seems to be an effort by you to try to drum up your own piece of drama around the current hysteria over Google Street View.
As more than one person has pointed out, the blurring of faces, car licence plates, etc. is done by a piece of software which automatically scans every photo & applies a blurring transformation. Did you or anyone else honestly think some poor soul actually sat down with every one of the photos in Street View & decided "Ooh, there Ronaldo's face on a wall, better blur it in case he complains about having his privacy invaded"? Your story is written in such a way that it seems to hint that something akin to this was done; a gaggle of Google-folk being over-sensitive over privacy when it is nothing of the sort, just a by-product of a computer progam.
On a separate point, you state "Indeed, such is the anxiety and the sense that publicity is inherently dangerous, that we obscure scenes that anyone might witness looking out of a bus." Yes, but I think the point being made by those who wish certain images to be removed from Street View is that if, from a bus, one sees e.g. a man entering a sex shop or paramedics attending to someone, etc. one gets a transient image which is then committed to (unreliable) human memory, whereas these images are permanent & can be linked to, copied, shown to anyone across the entire globe.
Therefore:
(a) There is no over-the-top 'political correctness gone mad' mentality at Google with people madly blurring faces on posters & whatnot;
(b) People are perfectly justified in asking Google to remove certain images from Street View if they feel violated in some way them being in the public domain.
Everyone just calm down.
Complain about this comment
Just imagine if it emerged the Chinese Government had begun to monitor and record every street in the country.
We would all be saying "Wow, aren't we lucky we don't live in a police state like that."
The fact that a non-elected multinational corporation is doing it is even worse.
Removing individual images after a complaint has been made is just a joke - as the woman trying to escape her violent ex-partner will no doubt confirm.
Complain about this comment
This wont be a story until the first court reports of convicted burglars using Street View to case properties or vehicles. It must be wonderful for car thieves to have a national database of parked cars and their locations. No more having to mooch about in posh neighbourhoods checking what's available, dodging the neighbourhood watch etc. Just log in and make a list. If you have a nice car and it's parked outside your house on Street View, maybe you should consider having that image removed.
Complain about this comment
"But even if he had been captured on Google's new Street View maps, their technology means that his face would have been automatically blurred."
That's not strictly true. Have a look in Parliament Square - you can see Brian Haw and some other guy unaltered standing next to a placard where the face of George Bush has been blurred out along with a few random words that the software has mistaken for number plates.
Complain about this comment
"Just imagine if it emerged the Chinese Government had begun to monitor and record every street in the country."
It isn't "monitoring" anything. The photos aren't being updated.
Complain about this comment
BoisGilbert and #21.
"...still not illegal to take photos in a public place.."
Well, you go ahead mate, but, if you ever publish a photo containing my features without my permission I hope you've got a very healthy bank balance because you will need for my total legal claim of compensation of invasion of my privacy.
Complain about this comment
The media are only adding to the hype regarding this issue - it shouldn't even be in the news. They need to clarify to these oversensitive paranoid busybodies that Street View is not real time. It is no more an invasion of their privacy than me taking a picture of my friend, on any old street, catching them by accident in the background and then posting it on a blog. Unless they're going to demand that we start censoring everyone's personal pictures too? What about news reports? What about postcards? Google Earth and Street View are giving us the chance to experience our world in totally new ways; it's making a large, strange world a little smaller and more accessible. Let's not have it ruined by a small number of people silly enough to believe it's anything more sinister than this.
Complain about this comment
I personally don't see what the problem is. The cars driving around obtaining the pictures were seeing more or less what anybody strolling along the streets would have seen. Sure, now the entire world can see, but if you don't want to be seen in public doing something you shouldn't be doing, don't do it. I was actually on the Manic Street Features article after having found myself on on Street View, and I really don't care - OK, I'm not doing anything embarrassing, might look a bit rough, but then again it's blurred enough that no one can really tell. Those people who have been caught out where they wished they hadn't and have the unfortune to not have been blurred out... well unlucky - but at least they have the choice to have the image removed, which I think is more than fair. Any system has it's flaws, and frankly I think it's such a darned good idea that will help many more people than it embarrasses.
Complain about this comment
#27
"Well, you go ahead mate, but, if you ever publish a photo containing my features without my permission I hope you've got a very healthy bank balance because you will need for my total legal claim of compensation of invasion of my privacy."
You are the one that will lose your money. The law on this is quite clear. There is no such thing as a right to privacy in a public place. Different thing if you're on your own property or in some other place where you have "a reasonable expectation of privacy". But on the street, no.
And copyright in any photograph resides with the person who took it, unless they have assigned it to someone else.
Complain about this comment
chimpspanner and #28.
"...over-sensitive, paranoid busybodies.." and ".. no more invasion of privacy than me taking a picture of my friend, on any old street, catching them by accident in the background and then posting it on a Blog.."
Outside of a late-night Pub chat you seldom get someone as baldly talking about what little they know of the Legal situation with such confidence and such complete lack of knowledge!
Mate, for your own sake, read and learn:
1) It is not an offence for you to take a photo of anyone with their permission, e.g. your friend on a street corner; and, whilst any reasonable person would not expect you to seek their permission for their inadvertent appearance in the background, in strictly legal terms, you could be obliged to do so. However, for strictly private use no UK Court is likely to find in favour of someone who complained, especially as they would not ever be aware of their image being shared privately.
2)As for "publishing ", e.g. in a Blog, that photo of a friend: Entirely different matter; no Privacy there and you would be breaking the law to publish, as in make commonly available, any photo that included a specific individual who had not given you permission to use their image.
Now of course, you are so familiar with newspaper photos of crowds at sporting events, street celebrations (as someone on here referred.. OK/Hello) and those who for various reasons have come into the public eye, that you think that is what your publishing of the 'friend' photo is doing. Should any one of us choose to attend a public occasion the law is quite clear that we do not have right of redress (except exceptional circumstance, e.g. photos of changing rooms etc.) for a crowd or individual photograph that is deemed in the public interest. Your 'friend' photo is most certainly not the case in the eyes of the UK legal system. You took a private photo and you are now making it public: You need your friend's permission and the permission of every other identifiable person in that photo. You must have heard of the boyfriend/girlfriend 'naughty' photo cases; well, invading mine or any other private citizen's privacy is no different, clothed or not!
Without such personal permission you could face very heavy claims for infringement of privacy as well as breech of copyright laws.
Unfair, silly?
Just ponder this scenario: You are in a public park and from far off witness a violent mugging but are too far away to do anything. A person with a camera happened to take a photo of the area and your image is in it, maybe even with others, or even the muggers; the police later put up your photo to try to jog the memories of other passersby - of course, you being the public-spirited, liberal-minded person that you so evidently are would not mind the police taking that step with your image, would you? Come on now, you were just minding your own business, strolling along and now your photos out there for all to see - no problem with that, is there? Why should the police have asked your permission, you don't mind at all, do you?
Complain about this comment
badgercourage and #30.
Sorry mate, but you are right, the law is quite clear on right to privacy in a public place: I.e. my image on someon'e photo by accident is perfectly acceptable, but, publish my image without permission and the law comes down on the indvidual's side everytime.
Tell you what: You start taking photos of young ladies and gents in the local park and see whether the local PC sends you or them away with a warning or a caution in your ear!
Complain about this comment
32
Actually, there are no specific laws concerning photography in the UK.
The law can only comes into play in respect of a photograph taken in a public place in limited circumstances and even then, it is very difficult to see how the law can intervene on behalf of the person photographed. What law has been broken?
I imagine any court case would depend on the court's view of whether the location was private, whather the photographer broke any law (not including trespass, which is not of itelf illegal) to get the picture and how and for what purpose the image was "published". How many paparazzi have been found guilty of a crime for taking and selling photos of people against their wishes? Such a photographer might find himself convicted of criminal damage, assault or a road traffic offence but not for taking the snap in a public place, since there is no law under which such a verdict can be reached. Don't you think that if there was such a law it wouldn't be invoked every day?
Unless the photographer (or more likely the publisher, as they are easier to threaten and influence) has done something clearly illegal or heinous get the photograph, there's little the law can do.
You may well feel that's unfair or unreasonable, and that there should be a privacy law or some other means of society deciding what is fair and what is not. I do actually have some sympathy with that, as do Max Mosley and many others.
And while the local PC will probably tell you that you can't take pictures of children in a public place he's wrong. There is no law that prohibits this, although the "court of public opinion" (presiding judge H. Harman) would probably take a dim view of this and assume you had the basest motives; they might well take the law into their own hands. Which is why sensible people avoid such situations.
But the PC will probably not know the law, or have been trained to cajole or bully you into stop doing something perfectly legal. And if he takes your film or damages your camera he'll technically be guilty of assault and criminal damage, although the photographer would probably be wise not to pursue this...
As I say, you may regard this whole situation as morally and legally reprehensible but unless and until Parliament passes a law governing photography and privacy, that remains the legal position.
I'm sure that Google are legally in the clear. As you might imagine, as one of the richest companies in the world they will have taken very expert legal advice on this, and would not have gone ahead if they had any fear of being hauled down. Good PR influences them better than poor legal advice.
Complain about this comment
#32
ps
Are all the CCTV cameras taking pictures of us illegal too? or at least the police or others publishing images from them without the permission of the people "captured"?
Complain about this comment
20 LippyLippo
There is a massive difference between what the government does and what a private company does
for one, and something which you should always bear in mind about any government is that they are above the law - they can do what they like with little to stop them, the company can be challenged quite easily
This is why people are quite happy to give all their details to their bank or supermarket - that is a choice and has a discernible benefit, when the government take it, it is involuntary and can be used for oppression
Personally I don't really think in relation to this it's a valid concern - it's just a collection of stills that map the streets, they aren't updated and are far less invasive than cctv, there's no legal reason why any company or the government couldn't do that
Complain about this comment
We the jury find in favour of badgercourage.
ikamaskeip you are found guilty of talking authoritavely about a subject you clearly knew nothing about. Basing this bluffery, no doubt ironically, on kak-fisted Google searches.
Complain about this comment
Call to 'shut down' Street View
I am writing a response to the claim that the lobby group Privacy International (PI), has written to the IOC with regards to a formal complaint against the UK Google Street View service that has just been recently launched.
PI has overlooked one of the fundamental laws of photography. All photography taken within the public highway is legal. When the general public are out of their houses, they have every right to question what the images are for, but the photographer is not legally obliged to do anything. Just because Google have offered a level of privacy by blurring out faces and car registration details, this has given the general population the assumption that if they can blur it, then they can remove it. I believe that PI have overlooked this finer legal issue.
The same law falls into effect when using images for journalism. Within the national papers, there aren't hoards of faces censored to meet public “privacy” concerns. If they [the public] at the location of any news worthy incident, then they are in the public domain and all rights to privacy have been waived.
It seems like Google are falling fowl to the same scrutiny other photographers are faced with on a daily basis. This is purely because the public confused about their rights especially when in public places. If the images were taken in a covert manner, then yes, there would have been a questionable motive and the public would have been able to have further privacy concerns over the images. But the fact remains that Google we're using a 1,500kg camera that does stand out. Google had also put the company livery over the car. The Street View service is an innovation in which the public can use this information for educational purposes. The way in which these records are becoming freely available for everyone to view is something that the public are not warming up to well. Google, Internationally, has not been subject to much criticism. Aside from the landmark case in which a member of the public failed in their claim that it infringed their privacy.
The population of people in the UK complaining about this service that Google are offering is a reminder at how “out of the time” a lot of people are. We live in a culture where camera phones and Facebook tagging is the norm. So what is the problem with having an image that is censored published on the internet? No public information is held with regards to the images shown. To be completely honest, this whole farce is being created by a few and highlighted by the lobbyists who live in the past.
If Britain is supposed to be a dynamic integrated culture, then why do we let ourselves down when it comes to new technologies, principals, and ethics being adapted to make our daily lives more enriched?
Complain about this comment
If people are worried that by chance a (probably blurred) photo of them might appear on a web site is a gross invasion of their privacy, I think they need to consider seeing a psychiatrist about their problems.
Complain about this comment
In a public place there is no privacy. Why do so many people appear to have a difficulty with this concept?
Complain about this comment
BadgerCourage 33# and #34.
"..no specific laws.. photography..": That is not the issue; if you don't understand that basic concept then you are arguing from the wrong page to start with.
"..paparazzi..": Actively seek out and publish images of 'celebrities', 'high-profile', 'prominent' people in the 'public eye'; as such the laws of privacy do not apply in a blanket form though you will find paparazzi have been prosecuted (sometimes successfully) for invasion of privacy/breeching confidentiality laws and by each other on other on grounds of breech of copyright(!).
"...you think such a law invoked everyday..": Those 'laws' concerning privacy are used everyday; it is why we do not have newspapers, tv running images of ordinary Citizens except in noteworthy/publically interesting/informative situations. Newspaper and Television Editors know the legal position (as do most pro journo-photographers) thus some images appear but a lot do not.
Police do not 'publish' CCTV images: They use footage only of people wanted on suspicion of committing a crime, e.g. when the Scottish football fans attacked the policeman after the Euro Final at Wembley.
CCTV images of people at work, partying, sexually active etc. have been put on the Internet etc. by security guards and other people with access, thinking it's fun, and Facebook, My Space, Google etc. have always had to comply with the law and remove them.
BonkersThink and #36.
Yes, I am sure your reasoned verdict was based on the 'English' ability your comment displayed: ..'authoritatively'..'bluffery'..'cack-handed'..
You clearly are a man of letters! Mis-spelt and non-existent ones!
'Ironically' your 'verdict' says far more about your intellectual capacity and need to research (in your case start with a dictionary) than it does mine.
Now run along and let the grown-ups get on with their debate.
Complain about this comment
@ ikamaskeip
You really are shameless. Your arguments are pathetic and were easily shown to be so. You know you are wrong but just can't swallow it. There is no debate, you have been corrected. Accept it.
Giving kak-fisted public lectures on a subject you know nothing about will only lead to your humiliation.
Complain about this comment
BonkersThink and #41.
Sorry, I cannot oblige you. Look up the term 'debate' when you have your dictionary and try to find the bit about intelligent argument as opposed rudeness and crudeness.
The debate on this topic involves people with views, opinins, knowledge: Not sad users of epithets (that's name-calling, to help you out) etc.
Now in the vernacular you may understand: Jog on.
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo, BadgerCourage, RockShowScott, Brightstrikealight, tarquin et al
PS: What is your 'take' on the Government initiative announced today that MySpace, Facebook etc. should keep a record of every single users activity on their systems (and all mobile/land-line calls too) in order for the Government Depts. to be able to access those records at any time for supposed 'criminal and or security' threats/investigations etc.?
Apparently the above user-file-requirement will also apply to Google.
Are you okay with that sort of surveillance, or do you like me, suspect we are getting a tad too close to the Peoples Republic of China in our supposed Democratic methods?
Complain about this comment
My English is pretty good, I think :) How is your Croatian?
I might have to borrow your dictionary as I can't find the word "opinin" anywhere. Perhaps as a native English speaker you can explain this new word to me.
As someone who engages in petty, pedantic, point scoring on spelling and grammar, you really should check before you post. You seem determined to continue this festival of self humiliation. Please do :)
Complain about this comment
BonkersThink and #44.
You are a Croat?
Well, in that case your English is of a very reasonable standard. I withdraw my remarks about it.
However, why you would choose to comment on UK/English 'privacy laws' is a mystery.
Please, do not attempt to explain. It is of no importance.
Apologies for the typographical error of missing the 'o' in opinion: Well spotted.
Now, please, let us move on as I really have nothing to debate with you about English Law and my knowledge of Croat law and language is nil.
Complain about this comment
Further to comments on my post, my main gripe is that this is a prime example of electronic media being able to weasel out of the controls that are in place on other media. I am not at all sure that this is a good thing, and I think we have far more information than is good for us. As a society we are simply too confused or too in awe of the 'net to even think of questioning whether we actually need most of the information that is on it. Our own law-makers and protectors can't control it. Those that do understand it have made themselves powerful billionaires, richer and more influential than many Governments. I don't buy the idea that they provide us with these costly services just out of a sense of philanthropy. You can be sure that at some point in the future they will want a return on their investment and I for one do not want to be taken for a ride by them.
I also cannot understand why people are so happy to have a private company decide, without consulting anybody, to take images of their houses and publish them for anyone in the world to see. Would you be happy for me to stand in the street and stare at your house all day? No. And you'd probably do something about it as well. But when I can hide behind technology and view your house from another continent there is nothing you can do. CCTV, like it or not, is installed for reasons of security. Access to the images is mostly controlled. My friends, work colleagues and neighbours don't have access to them and I trust those few that do to use the images responsibly.
I would actually feel more comfortable if it were the Government's doing - I don't feel hostile towards the Government. I am not paranoid enough to think that they are interested in me and I can exercise my right to vote them out if I don't like what they're doing. I do not trust Google. They are a company based miles away overseas and outside our jurisdiction. They have an incredible amount of control over a very powerful medium that few people understand. They are motivated by money and could sell information to whoever pays them the most.
I liken this argument to crime and terrorism. We and our rulers are perfectly happy to be killed by criminals or yobs and we do nothing about it. But if we're killed or threatened by terrorists we change laws, bring in draconian measures and give wars! Similarly we scream blue murder if a Government threatens surveillance or control, but are perfectly happy for a large rich private company to do the same thing! At the end of the day aren't we just as dead and just as threatened?
Complain about this comment
#43
I'm against all this government intrusion and as I said in my previous post I have some sympathy with those calling for a privacy law and at least some limited protection for the "ordinary" person who would rather not be photographed even in a public place.
All I was saying was the legal position as I have researched it and operated during my working life.
You seem to be angry that this is the law. That's your right. But the solution is to campaign for it to be changed, not try to contend that it ain't so.
It's a rough old world out there, and getting worse with new technology (8mp cameras on mobile phones, internet video, etc.), changing social attitudes and authoritarian government. I'm pessimistic about anything changing for the better.
ps
"CCTV images of people at work, partying, sexually active etc. have been put on the Internet etc. by security guards and other people with access, thinking it's fun, and Facebook, My Space, Google etc. have always had to comply with the law and remove them."
As I understand it this is because the pictures were taken in private places (at work, partying, in hotels etc.), not ones taken in the streets. Or because the images were stolen by the security guard who had no right to the cctv footage. Or because it's not worth fighting a legal case over and getting bad publicity. Quote me a case that contradicts this, please?
pps
The Police do regularly "publish" or cause to be published CCTV footage. The give it to news channels, TV documentaries, all sorts of people when they think it might help solve a crime or where it suits their wider agenda. They also invite TV crews to go with them on raids / arrests, and although they / the TV companies do hide faces they don't always pixelate the resulting images carefully enough for individuals not to be identified - eg street and house numbers etc.
Complain about this comment
@ 40
"Those 'laws' concerning privacy are used everyday; it is why we do not have newspapers, tv running images of ordinary Citizens except in noteworthy/publically interesting/informative situations. Newspaper and Television Editors know the legal position (as do most pro journo-photographers) thus some images appear but a lot do not."
I think it's actually because pictures of ordinary people doing ordinary things don't sell papers.
Complain about this comment
Re BoisGilbert's comment that it isn't illegal to take photos of someone - that's correct, but it IS illegal to 'sell' or make money from another person's image. Check this, the image is the copyright of the person who owns the 'property' i.e. his or her face!
Complain about this comment
@ 49
"Check this, the image is the copyright of the person who owns the 'property' i.e. his or her face!"
That's just not true!
From wikipedia:
"Copyright is a form of intellectual property which gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation; after which time the work is said to enter the public domain."
A persons face is not an original work, and has not been created by the person, therefore it cannot be copyrighted.
For example models and professional athletes have their photos taken for commercial purposes. If they could copyright their face and make money from it, don't you think they would? The only exception is when trying using celebrities images to sell products directly, ie using a photo of Steve Redgrave in an advert for a boating company to suggest he endorses it.
Complain about this comment
#49
For the umpteenth time this is NOT TRUE.
The copyright unequivocally lies with the photographer.
The question of commercial image rights, if any, is a completely separate issue, and usually relates to photographs taken with the active co-operation of the subject and/or as part of their employment.
Other legal issues in this field usually centre on whether the photograph breaches the public / private place test, (e.g whether a football match is a private place) or whether the publication implies that the person photographed endorses a product, service or campaign being promoted or advertised. Celebrities and sports people HAVE won cases where advertisers used pictures or other representations of of them to suggest erroneously they endorsed a product, e.g. Eddie Irvine. But not always; David Bedford lost his case against a well-known directory enquiry service
In essence, any case would have to rely on upon one or more of copyright and trade mark infringement, the law of passing off, defamation (libel) and malicious falsehood and infraction of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
Abba and the Spice Girls famously failed in their attempts at preventing others from selling "pirate" merchandise displaying their images without authorisation, because there was no suggestion that they endorsed these images.
If you are walking in a public place and someone takes a photograph of you s/he has a perfect right to use this, subject to the caveats above.
As I have said before, whether this is "fair" is a different issue. But Parliament would have to pass a law to change this situation.
Complain about this comment
badgercourage and #51.
For the umpteenth time it is true!
It is illegal for you to Publish the image of another person without their permission! No Court in the UK would find for you in a case where you Published a photo of any man, woman or child (except as already umpteen times explained to you... celebrity, public occasion, crowd event etc.): Why else do you think Advertising uses actors for every single image? Why else do you suppose even those very Public places like Airports, Bus Terminals, Rail Stations etc. show crowd scenes or their own Staff, but, not the individual adult or child passenger? Why else do the terrestrial, cable and satellite Television Channels all carry disclaimers about people incidental to their Documentaries etc.?
Where on earth did you ever get the idea/notion/assumption that you or anyone else can walk up to a person in the street, take their picture and then Publish it for profit without their permission? If that were the case no advertising company would ever employ any actor when they could just photograph a particular Cigarette, Soap Powder, Car etc. user from amongst the Public!
Complain about this comment
@52
"Why else do you think Advertising uses actors for every single image?"
For greater artistic control of the image they are creating.
"Where on earth did you ever get the idea/notion/assumption that you or anyone else can walk up to a person in the street, take their picture and then Publish it for profit without their permission?"
Maybe you could direct us to the law that says it is illegal ?
Complain about this comment
# 52
I quick search on the internet will provide lots of information to prove it's you that's wrong.
There are several useful sites but one good one (which has a link to a handy PDF guide on where you can and can't take photographs) is:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide
I reiterate that you should check the law before you make these statements. Just because you assume or want something that does not make it true.
"Where on earth did you ever get the idea/notion/assumption that you or anyone else can walk up to a person in the street, take their picture and then Publish it for profit without their permission?"
Because there is NO LAW SAYING YOU CAN'T!
I reiterate again that I have some sympathy with those who don't like the current legal position (or think there SHOULD be a specific law setting out what's allowed and what isn't). If you feel that strongly about it, you should get your local MP to try to change the law.
Complain about this comment
I have tried to research this on Google, Wiki, Britannica, the UK Law Reform Society, the EU Convention on Human Rights etc.: I am not a legal person but nevertheless there are some very accessible explanatory documents out there.
There is no general UK Act/Law pertaining exclusively to Photography and Photographers.
Apparently, until the UK signed up to the Human Rights Act in 2000 which incorporates the European Convention of Human Rights, disputes about rights/responsibilities on this topic were usually settled by individual legal actions, and none were setting precedents that would determine all future judgements.
However, under the HR Convention Article 8 - Everyone has a right to respect for his/her Privacy, Family Life, Home, Correspondence and ('where appropriate' - unsure myself what that means) in the Work place (presumably refers to sensitive jobs, e.g. MI5, Anti-Terrorism, Military etc.?).
No Public Authority, no private institution shall interfere with the exercising of the above right of the individual except in accordance with the law, democratic interests, national security, public safety, prevention of crime.... (lengthy list - sort of typical Bureaucratic catch-all/let-out depending on situation!).
Other Articles within the HR Convention give individuals rights under Copyright - Images are also subject to Copyright. Photographers cannot Publish/Display a Picture without permission from the Copyright holder. In the case of Public figures the consent is known as 'Model Release'.
Photographers are subject to the Laws of Trespass and Photos taken on any form of Private Property do risk injunctions etc. A Photographer (inc. TV crews) asked to stop taking Photos on Private Property must comply or risk arrest.
I was wrong when I asserted it is illegal to take a Photograph of an individual without their permission in a Public place: However, my mistake was only a partial one; the Photographer who takes Photos without seeking permission does put themselves at risk of Legal Complaint from an individual and as you read on you will see the 'grey' area comes into clearer focus. A Photographer publishing an image is subject to quite stringent UK legal constraints if they go about it the wrong way.
Data Protection which controls "processing" of "personal data" relating to an individual also includes any image held of that individual. The DP Law allows for individuals who can be identified in an image.. "shall be entitled, at reasonable intervals and without undue delay or expense, to be informed by any Data user (this may be a Public body, private institution or individual) whether it holds personal Data of which that individual is the subject or part thereof.."
Freedom of Expression - UK Courts must be cautious concerning artistic, journalistic or literary material. Particular note must be made of the extent to which it (the image) has, or will, become publicly available or would be of interest to the public. Attention must be paid to the various Codes of Conduct relating to Privacy that are operated by the range of UK public bodies, e.g BBC, Press Complaints Commission etc.
Harassment - In Photography this is deemed as a 'course of conduct' whereby taking photos on 2 or more occasions has been objected to by the subject with the exceptions of public figures (and presumably in this day and age the 'celebrity'!?).
Not always remembered by Photographers is the additinal part of UK Harassment Law that sTates - It is illegal to knowingly Publish an image of an individual not concerned with the immediate subject if by that publication the indivdual is associated with and or causes him/her disrepute or notoriety that can be shown to be outside their normal sphere of experience or expectation.
Penalty for Harassment in England and Wales - Max 6 months imprisonment, a substantial Fine, or both.
Naturally, most individuals going about their daily lives would not bother with a writ if they find themselves in the background of a Photo down their local street. However, the above makes it clear that any individual has the right to redress if they do feel their image has been unfairly/inappropriately used and thus Publishing a private individual's image without their express permission can contravene the Law and UK and European Courts will usually find for the complainant and against the Photographer/Publisher.
NB: A interesting side issue that I found was the UK Law trying to keep up with the Internet; in some ways they have acted much faster than with normal photographic image. Thus placing any image on the 'Net without the permission of the subject has already been made illegal, but, only when/where the use of the image is "likely to cause offence, constitutes an invasion of privacy, is likely to deprave.." and "adjusting/altering" images without permission is another no-go. Apparently, that basically means the 'Net is more tightly controlled than magazines, papers etc. which brings us back to the origin of the this Blog.
Complain about this comment
#55
OK. let's leave it there. Truce?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS