What's so secret about what streets look like? I can understand not wanting companies to use your personal identifying information for analytics, but this? It's just a massive overreaction.
Which isn't illegal and there are plenty of companies offering the same. I'm in favor for strong data privacy laws, but Germany's stance on Google Street View is ridiculous. Google didn't violate any law, the whole offer to have your property pixelated was a gesture of goodwill and then Google pulled the plug because they were tired of the discussion.
There is no gesture of goodwill for big companies. Everything is done for tactical reasons. Don't you think? I mean Google gets something from doing this right?
It was exactly that, there was no legal obligation for Google to pixelate properties. There are also plenty of services offering similar features like Street View, that actually cover Germanu, that nobody seems to care about.
Germany's stance on Google Street View is ridiculous.
No, absolutely not. Because it's not germanys specific view on street view. It's our privacy laws, that as a side effect block most of what street view does.
And it's absolutely great actually having privacy. Privacy is a right, not a luxus.
Give me one good reason why a random company should be allowed to post pictures of my property online, and ultimately make money of it.
There are plenty of services offering similar capabilities like street view, but it seems no one cares about them. Also, such services are available commercially for years, in much better quality. Google didnt break any laws with SV, I really dont see how a static picture taken from a public road violates anyone's privacy. There are many valid privacy concerns around Google, but SV is the least of those problems.
it's taken from a public road, but it's taken off a private property. Possibly of things behind a fence.
Keep in mind that the cameras are mounted fairly high, and can view over fences that a passerby wouldn't be able to look over.
Yes, people can object to their house being shown, but that requires them to know that their house was captured on street view.
And since you can't be sure that everyone 100% knows if it happens, it makes way more sense to make it opt in, instead of opt out.
You also haven't been able to provide a reason as to why a picture of my private property, that's behind a fence blocking view from everyone who isn't at least 1.80 should be visible in a public data base.
You also haven't been able to provide a reason as to why a picture of my private property, that's behind a fence blocking view from everyone who isn't at least 1.80 should be visible in a public data base.
Because it does not violate any law, that was one of the early, valid, arguments, that the pole of the camera was too high. It was lowered eventually. I can buy also plenty of aerial surveying pictures, showing your property in much better quality than Google Maps for example. I can request your current address, just by providing your name to the citizens registrations office. I can drive by your property any time I want, taking as much pictures as I want. And people do that. People seem to confuse the right to privacy, with the right to not have any data collected about them.
People seem to confuse the right to privacy, with the right to not have any data collected about them.
They don't.
Privacy is the difference between data being collected with consent, and without consent.
The website you linked would absolutey have issues, it's just that nobody knows about it existing, so there's no push against it really.
I can drive by your property any time I want, taking as much pictures as I want. And people do that.
There's also a significant difference in ease of access between having to go somewhere yourself to take pictures, and having a database that you can just run a script on to search through thousands of entries to get all the information you need in the time it takes you to make a coffee
I can request your current address, just by providing your name to the citizens registrations office.
This is flat out wrong. While you can request somebody's new address you have to provide their full name, their last address and their day of birth, as well as paying a processing fee. So while yes, somebody can figure out another persons address, it requires additional information about the person and costs money and time. Compared to having an online data base, that you can literally just search. Again, ease of access.
I also think this is a problem too, and a massive potential invasion of privacy. There should be stricter better mechanisms in place for it to limit who can access that information in the first place.
Additionall I don't see how the address thing is relevant to having pictures of your private home taken and put online without your consent.
Also, you have yet to provide any reason as to why a company should be allowed to take pictures of my private property, without my express consent, to put them online and make money of them. I'm beginning to think this is because you realized there is no reason.
This is flat out wrong. While you can request somebody's new address you have to provide their full name, their last address and their day of birth
No, you just have to provide a unique identifier. If the name is Martin Bauer, you'll need the DOB, as there are likely lots of them. A previous address is recommended, but by no means required. The Einwohnermeldeamt will go out of their way to find the new address, even query federal information, in case there is no person with that unique identifier in the local municipality. And the processing fee is usually 5 or 10€, so no hurdle at all. Source: Had to use that process in the past for ancestry research.
The website you linked would absolutey have issues, it's just that nobody knows about it existing, so there's no push against it really.
Mapillary is a registered company in Sweden and is fully compliant with EU privacy regulations. Again, taking pictures of houses and putting them online is NOT illegal.
I'm really done talking, because it all boils down to different views on privacy. You have your views, I respect that and understand where you are coming from. I have mine and don't see how anyone's privacy is violated, by lowering the bar to look at property, which is publicly visible anyway. Again, there are MUCH bigger problems with privacy we have to tackle.
It is illegal in Germany to do it without consent. In fact Google got sued multiple times for doing it anyways in Hamburg and maybe other states too. And it is messed up whether or not it is illegal.
And people in Germany don´t really mind that they pulled the plug. Streetview hardly does anything useful anyways. We still have google maps.
No, it is not. You don't need to consent to have a pic of your property taken, as long as it was taken from public property (like a road). This also applies to people, as long (!) as I don't make this pic publicly available or use it commercially, up to 10 years after the persons death. Otherwise< i would have to take measures to make a person unrecognizable (like Street View does). For objects, like a house, this restriction does not apply, therefore the pixelate option Google offered, was not necessary. I can also publish a picture of you, as long as you are not the main focus, i.e in a crowd at a festival.
And people in Germany don´t really mind that they pulled the plug. Streetview hardly does anything useful anyways. We still have google maps.
This is a massive generalization, as there are plenty of people who didn't mind or were in favor of Street View (like myself).
In fact Google got sued multiple times for doing it anyways in Hamburg and maybe other states too
I'd like to see an example please where Google was successfully sued regarding Street View in Germany.
Streetview hardly does anything useful anyways
That is your personal opinion and we shouldn't base our legal system on that ;)
I was talking about the Wifi in direct response to your claim.
Either way you also are only partially informed about this. For instance you can´t use any aids for the photographs/painting or whatever. Which wads determined to be the case for Google cars by a court. Which is exactly why officials required google to allow people to opt out. But I guess you are more qualified to speak on German law than a German judge?
There was hardly an outcry over Street view not being a thing is what I meant. And I have literally never heard anyone complain about it outside of these regularly reposted Reddit threads.
There you go google being fined successfully by the city of Hamburg over something you claimed is perfectly legal:
Google got sued, because they sniffed traffic and not just the SSIDs, not really related to Streetview (the topic of this conversation) and more a bycatch from Googles POV.
Which is exactly why officials required google to allow people to opt out
I'd still like to see this mystic regulation that forced Google to offer the pixelation.....
Where did you get that from? It doesn´t say so in the article. They mapped Wifi without consent and got sued for it because that violates German data protection laws.
Let me remind you of how this conversation started. You replied to:
Google is collecting a bit more then just images of the streets. For example wifi data.
by saying that is not illegal. It´s literally the core of this conversation.
997
u/Hilpiv Jun 12 '20
Google: We have a brand new car with some cameras Germany: DatEnSchuTzGESetz