Comments

I find your points regarding criminals using Street View to case locations to be particularly unpersuasive. Street View images cannot provide accurate information regarding burglar alarms, daily routines, etc. Street View may help identify a potential target, but it is no substitute for real casing. Nevertheless, it does not take a criminal mastermind to obtain all of the information that Street View can provide. Anyone can drive by the front of a house and make a guess about the relative value of its contents based on the neighborhood that it is in and its appearance.

-- StephenClarke - 30 Nov 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->

A Case Study in Privacy: Google Street View

-- By GavinSnyder - 15 Nov 2009

Google Street View, a component of Google Maps, provides panoramic camera photos views from streets. Street View is an example of how Internet data sharing can have serious privacy repercussions, so I thought it might be interesting to use it as a case study in privacy analysis.

Google Has Won Round One

Google lists four concessions made to placate privacy interests: public road access only, lack of real time imaging, blurring license plates and faces, and the ability to manually request removal of an image. The blurring technology works well – see the entrance to College Walk as an example. Although Google doesn’t have explicit guidelines on when it will remove Street View images, it has been assiduous in responding to takedown requests.

This limited set of concessions has let Google gain the good graces of governments around the world. For example, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has blessed Street View. Switzerland and Germany have been the most vocal in opposing Street View. In Germany, Google agreed to erase source images on demand. In Switzerland, a dispute with Swiss data protection commissioner Hanspeter Thür hasn’t yet been resolved. But overall, there’s little sense that governments have the stomach to completely ban Street View.

In the US, the case Boring v. Google, Inc., 598 F.Supp.2d 695 (W.D. Pa. 2009), interpreting Pennsylvania law, found no cause of action for an invasion of privacy tort using either “intrusion upon seclusion” or “publicity given to private life” theories when Google took Street View photos of a private residence from a private road. Although some commentators have advocated a more activist interpretation of privacy torts that would take into account the unique problems with Street View, current law is not receptive to banning it.

Essentially, Google has repeatedly deflected privacy concerns by being willing to make minor changes to Street View. Although this hasn’t silenced the major critics, Google has been remarkably successful in converting regulatory agencies and key decision makers.

What Are The Privacy Concerns?

And, just as we’ve drawn a distinction in class between protecting a big secret and allowing corporations to data mine you, perhaps the bigger threat here is targeted marketing to homeowners based on photos of their digs. Driveway got potholes? The paving company will want to know. Exotic plants, dead grass? Maybe a landscaper would pay for the information. Of course, it was always possible to drive around neighborhoods and get the same information. But it wasn’t digitized and publicized, and therefore easily cross-indexed with other data.

In addition to the privacy concerns raised by third parties’ use of Street View, Google also has the opportunity to profile how Street View is browsed. Just as Facebook is able to predict affairs from knowing which users stalk others, Google, if it wanted to, could profile its users. Google already offers users contextualized local search results when viewing a location in Google Maps. Arguably, there’s not much more that Google knows about you from the fact that you viewed an area in street view than from a bird’s eye view, but if it stores detailed history then patterns may emerge which can be commercially exploited.

What Should Be Done?

On the horizon is the specter of collecting real time satellite or aerial photography, Enemy of the State-style. Additionally, as more people use Street View and combine it with other data, many of the alarmist scenarios will come true. Some criminals WILL use it to rob a mansion; some companies WILL deliver targeted marketing to homeowners.

How should individuals and governments respond?

As Professor Moglen has suggested, individuals can use self help. Here, they could proactively use Google’s built-in system to block Street View images. But this requires quite a high level of involvement – people have to know about Street View, find themselves or their property, and then submit the report. Privacy will still end up being compromised simply through apathy.

Governments can insist that Google keep all existing privacy safeguards in place when adding Street View data for new countries. Additionally, they can press for a more explicit policy on responding to user-reported problems. Ideally, Google would operate under a clear, codified policy to take down reported images swiftly.

None of this, however, would change the fundamental dynamics of Street View. Because of its substantial utility, most people and governments will accept an intrusion into privacy. They don’t have the same uncompromising attitude towards privacy that Professor Moglen has. There is no political will, even in Europe, to completely ban it. Street View will become another piece of the data mining ecosystem that is available to public and private entities.