Gadgets & Tech

12° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Google Street View forced to remove images

Major public safety fears after US internet giant's cameras take photographs of a naked child

By Jane Merrick, Political Editor

Google was forced to remove photgraphs of a naked child from its Street View service last night as a row over internet privacy escalated into one about public safety.

The Independent on Sunday alerted the internet search giant after finding images of the toddlers, playing at a family summer picnic in a garden square in north London, captured permanently on the revolutionary mapping system. Britain’s privacy watchdog, the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, is considering an investigation into Google if more images of naked children are found to have been picked up by its cameras and made available to internet users.

Google has had hundreds of requests for images to be removed since it launched Street View on Thursday, including pictures of members of the public leaving sex shops or vomiting in the street. But the pictures of young children suggest the service could be exploited for more sinister purposes.

Last night it also emerged that Tony and Cherie Blair are among hundreds of people who have demanded that close-up photographs of their homes be removed. The Blairs’ home in Connaught Square, west London, was blacked out on Friday after nearly 24 hours on the web.

Pictures of Downing Street were also taken down, although it is not a private address and the location is photographed by millions of tourists every year.

The images of the children were taken last summer and show a typical scene of garden square life in a quiet side-street – a location that many families would deem semi-private and where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In one picture, the face of a three-year-old child, playing happily in the sunshine, is clearly identifiable.

The IoS is not naming the address for privacy reasons, but the square is just yards from a Cabinet minister’s home, although the children are not related to that minister.

The images of the garden square were removed by Google within an hour of the company being informed yesterday. The picture had been found by this newspaper within only 10 minutes, suggesting there could be many similar images on the website.

The Tory MP Edward Garnier said: “The right to privacy, and not to become the victim of some corporation’s profit-making activities, is clearly something that needs to be protected. We all have an expectation that our privacy should not be invaded or exploited for commercial purposes.”

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner’s Office said: “We will consider the IoS story carefully. Images of children must be properly blurred. If there is an underlying problem, for example if what has been uncovered is systemic, then we will take up the matter with Google.

“It is Google’s responsibility to ensure all images of adults and children are satisfactorily blurred. Individuals who feel that an image does identify them [and are unhappy with this] should contact Google direct to get the image removed. “

Individuals who have raised concerns with Google about their image being included – and who do not think they have received a satisfactory response – can complain to the ICO.”

A spokeswoman for Google said last night: “We will remove these pictures as quickly as possible.” She insisted that the pictures had been taken on a public road – although the street is not a thoroughfare. “This is still on the side of a public road. It [the camera] takes pictures at any time, and it [records] a fleeting moment.”

Asked whether Google was concerned that there would be other pictures of children, for example outside schools, the spokeswoman said: “Most of the faces are blurred. If they haven’t been, parents can hit a button and remove it [the image]. They show what is going on in the street at a particular moment; they are not live.”

Google has defended its use of the mapping service, which covers more than 22,000 miles and 25 UK cities, saying that the degree of clarity of the images is no different to those shown in estate agents’ literature.

But there are question marks over whether, in reality, an estate agent would be able to take photographs of a naked young child playing outside, without being challenged.

In a fresh twist, the Metropolitan Police denied claims by Google that it had been consulted about Street View prior to its launch. A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: “We have not been involved in discussions with Google regarding their product development.”

After earlier insisting that “99.99 per cent” of faces featured in Street View were blurred, Google admitted yesterday that this had been a “figure of speech” as it was clear that thousands of people can be identified. “The technique is not totally perfect,” the spokeswoman said. “The idea is not to blur every single face, only those that can be clearly identified.”

Among faces not obscured was a police officer standing guard outside the London home of Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, which was at the centre of a row over her expenses.

The Blairs’ grand Georgian house, with two police officers stationed outside, can still be viewed from an angle, but a close-up image of the property has been removed. A spokesman for the Blairs could not be contacted for comment. Google refused to comment on the Blairs’ individual case, but said images were being blacked out at the “user’s request”.

The company’s discomfort was compounded by a former criminal, Michael Fraser, who wrote in The Sun yesterday that Street View was a “gift to criminals”.

Germans in the country’s northern state of Schleswig-Holstein are threatening to take legal action against Google because of fears that its photographs of the region’s towns and streets are in breach of the country’s strict privacy laws.

A campaign against the internet giant has been launched from the small provincial town of Molfsee, near Kiel, and is being eagerly watched by dozens of other towns and cities in the region which has a population of close to 3 million.

“We are not going to let this happen,” said Reinhold Harwart, Molfsee’s conservative mayor. “This is opening people’s houses and homes to criminals. All this information is taken back to the United States and being processed. This can’t be allowed,” he told the IoS.

Similar concerns have been voiced by Marit Hansen, the state’s deputy officer in charge of data protection, and by Peter Schaar, Germany’s federal data protection chief, who said he has major misgivings about Google Street View. His office is currently investigating the issue.

The campaigners want Google to be obliged to obtain a street permit, similar to those held by vendors and market stall holders, before they take photographs. “We would then have the option of refusing them permission, which is what we would do,” Mr Harwart said.

Google’s spokesman for northern Europe claims, however, that Germany’s streets are public property and that the concern does not need a permit to take pictures. “We are not a tool designed for criminals,” a spokesman said.

Google Street View started photographing Germany in 2008 and the company has already taken pictures of many of the country’s major towns and cities. Harwart said his campaign planned to sue Google Street View if the concern was found to be in breach of privacy laws.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
It's easy enough to boycott Google
[info]imogenlucy wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 01:13 am (UTC)

I am not allowed to take photographs at my children's sports or gymnastics classes.

It seems there is one law for ordinary folk, and another for giant corporations.

Re: It's easy enough to boycott Google
[info]tazthepenguin wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 02:35 am (UTC)
The difference is that these images are not of a private class, they are simply streets which anyone could walk down and take the same images. There is no law against taking photographs in a public place.
Re: It's easy enough to boycott Google - [info]rants_a_lot - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 09:14 am (UTC) Expand
Re: It's easy enough to boycott Google - [info]rackman03 - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 05:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Google earth
[info]stevenahern wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 01:16 am (UTC)
I think that a couple of pictures which are embarrassing should be removed not the whole bloody lot, i enjoy looking around the world, seeing different countries. I'm only fifteen so i can't go there personally so google earth is the next best thing.

Steven Ahern.
Bristol
Whos paying for this?
[info]2jonboy2 wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 01:35 am (UTC)
ASIDE FROM THE 'GRAND MANSION HOUSE' WHOS PAYING FOR THE 2 POLICE OFFICERS STATIONED OUTSIDE PRESUMABLE 24/7?
Re: Who's paying for this?
[info]richardjeff wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 07:08 am (UTC)
All ministers and all former prime ministers and other ministers of whatever party are given police and other protection. It has been true for at least the last 30 years or more by my understanding, originating with IRA threats and fear of Russian assassins in the cold war.

It's not a perk and is simply to protect the elected government and other former government members considered high profile potential targets.

You and I pay for it like almost all other police and security work.
Why....
[info]apostlepope wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 01:44 am (UTC)
Why do people fixate on this, the pictures were taken over a period of time and " suggest the service could be exploited for more sinister purposes" is again the scaremongering of the press and actually destroys more freedoms for our children than the release of StreetView.

How about we all grow up and realise that a bunch of photos of a street can be taken by any person anywhere without any problem and uploaded to the internet, all Google has done has taken these and made finding them easy. Lets look at the bigger problem, what actually over than being cool is the use of StreetView...
Re: Why....
[info]dostoyevsky01 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 05:55 pm (UTC)
On our street, the Google car was blocked (hand of God?) by a truck delivering building materials, and only got up to number 5 (or something) (we're on a cul de sac), so our privacy hasn't been compromised, yet!

However the two workmen on the right of the delivery truck - one of them was not blurred out. He is in clear view, and I presuppose that he works for the company whose website is emblazened on the front of the truck. this image will be permanent, i guess until replaced and viewable by the whole world. The chance passing photographer, unless he/she has an ulterior motive would probably pass by on this photo and certainly wouldn't post it for all the world to see. C'est La Difference!

I don't know whether he thinks (this individual) if he has any privacy or even cares, but I am thinking of faxing an image of him to his company telling him I know where he works....I guess that is my point! In the wrong hands it is a somewhat invidious tool.

There is no privacy there is just an unbridled corporate agenda to....
Re: Why.... - [info]vaporland - Friday, 27 March 2009 at 12:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Street View Rocks!
[info]alazarin wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 01:56 am (UTC)
I think street view is an amazing feature of Google Earth. I was very pleased with the photos of my neighbourhood and was able to find the homes of my friends and family. And, as Steven Ahearn says, it's a great way to visit places you might be able to see otherwise.
Old english taboos
[info]joethedumber wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 02:23 am (UTC)
"The Independent on Sunday alerted the internet search giant after finding images of the toddlers, playing at a family summer picnic in a garden square in north London, captured permanently on the revolutionary mapping system"
So your playing snoop and find an innocent scene. Thank you for protecting us from reality.
if only...
[info]jacjul wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 05:26 am (UTC)
people paid a fraction of this attention demanding the government did something about it's new found obsession with people's privacy. What Google is doing is nothing by comparison. This is insane. Just take the Blair's house, I have seen countless photos of their home online... And yet my council can spy on my with absolutely no oversight. We deserve the government we have is all I can conclude.
Public is NOT private
[info]rustbeltman wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 05:44 am (UTC)
In the US the Courts at the highest level have very very clearly and unequivocally ruled that people who choose to be in public view - whether in their yards or on the street - have no reasonable expection of privacy from view or photo. Very sensible. What is prohibited is the use of a person's image, without consent, in commercial promotions (ads). That's very different than a simple reproduction of the public view, and not the case here.
[info]steve133 wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 05:58 am (UTC)
"The Independent on Sunday alerted the internet search giant after finding images of the toddlers, playing at a family summer picnic in a garden square in north London, captured permanently on the revolutionary mapping system"

I love The Independent, but "alerted"!! Way out of proportion. What - are you joining the ever growing thought police cohort now? You have just undermined most of your commentary and editorial ethos by that one ridiculous statement.

Pathetic and very demoralising
[info]islanderbis wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 07:01 am (UTC)
Remarkable pictures! However, in the interest of privacy it is important to block sensitive pctures which can open a Pandora's box.
Don't understand.
[info]richardjeff wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 07:11 am (UTC)
The pictures were taken from a public place of people in full public view. Anyone could have seen them there at the time and taken a photo. What's the problem?
Storm in a teacup
[info]foris_36 wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 07:23 am (UTC)
Oh dear, how long has Streetview been in existence? When it appeared in other countries, the world didn't end - and in fact the various satellite views available on the internet, including Google, are far more invasive of privacy than Streetview, which merely records what everybody can see walking along a public street. This article is an almighty, alarmist beatup, worthy of the worst of the tabloids. Shame on you, Independent.
Fight for your privacy
[info]peteran wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 07:24 am (UTC)
At this time, when our privacy is under threat in so many ways, it's vital that we recognise and resist incursions.

But this is just silly. All the Google Street View images are taken from, er, the street. The public street to be precise. See? The clue's in the word 'public'.

The part of your house than can be seen from the public street is not private. By definition. If you leave your old sofa in your front garden where it can be seen from the public street, you choose to make your slobbishness public and you can't complain if anyone (Google or otherwise) takes a picture of it and embarrasses you..

If you let your children play naked where they can be seen and photographed from the public street you're an idiot. If you do so because YOU 'deem' the area 'semi-private' you're an idiot with knobs on.

Get a grip people. Fight the government when it spies on you. Don't be distracted by a high-tech series of post cards that invades nobody's privacy.



Leave Google alone!
[info]ma1_uk wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
This is a fantastic tool which will will more than likely end up being used by schools, businesses and all kinds of other things. Why the Independant decided to run this story is beyond me! its not intrusive in anyway, If you look around it the only thing Google has done, quite well in fact is capture a single moment of time and made it available to those who would like to experience the opportunity of a virtual trip anywhere in the world. Also, how they can name it as a criminal's tool is downright absurd as I think you will find that they also carry tools of some description. Are we going to have a national story on some new type of screwdriver or hammer as the new choice for criminals?

Google-snoop.
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 08:59 am (UTC)
To those who enjoy looking around the world, buy a plane ticket like we all had to do prior to Google-snoop. This privacy invading, American atrocity should be taken offline now. But will it? No, not until someone to whom it really matters is affected by it, 'High Court Judge', 'Prime Minister' etc. By that time, it'll be too late. This 'let's know the colour of your socks' Government should never have allowed these intrusive camera vehicles on our roads in the first place.
Unusual ?
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC)
A government agency looking into the right of privacy, now that is unusual ?
Re: Unusual ?
[info]fatfelis wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 05:23 pm (UTC)
Please realise that these are PHOTOS, and what's more, taken LAST SUMMER - when I went to see different places in London they have summer vegetation around them and where I know for a fact that building alterations such as exchanging doors have been made since Autumn 2008 , these pictures are often taken BEFORE.
Re: Unusual ? - [info]humble_sparrow - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Yes,
[info]swordofalbion wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 09:13 am (UTC)
I wondered how long it would take, for parents to realise that this is a perverts dream. Just think, every time your child goes out to play, they could be watched by a whole host of undesirables, perverts and politicians. Still think it's a good idea?

This is without taking into account the terrorist angle. No need to go and recce the next attack site. Just look it up on google. Hey, any one from Google reading this, get ready. The law suits that will arise from this will destroy you. Hopefully!
Re: Yes,
[info]rsty1oct wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 09:18 pm (UTC)
No, every time your child goes out to play naked in view of the street, there's a chance someone walking past will see it. This is not a particular feature of Google street view, which freezes a single moment.
Re: Yes, - [info]alex_lyle - Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 09:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Yes, - [info]hitz12304 - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 07:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Yes, - [info]johnbouy - Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 12:32 pm (UTC) Expand
What a Laugh
[info]markmyword1949 wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 09:56 am (UTC)
This is the country with more CCTV coverage per head of population than almost any other country in the world and we are suddenly acting like a bunch of Victorian prudes? Get a grip. Whilst images of naked children should be banned almost anything else in the public domain should be allowed. The alternative is to remove all those CCTV cameras and the films, videos and DVDs of the "you've been framed" results that everyone appears to find amusing.
Oh, come on...
[info]steve_wilds wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 10:05 am (UTC)
"Major public safety fears after US internet giant's cameras take photographs of naked children"

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a little bit tabloidy? "Major public safety fears" indeed.
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
Well, they haven't removed my home from it!
Google Street View forced to remove images
[info]jan_ine wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC)
If you tolerate this, then your home, your family will be next....
Never read such NIMBY rubbish.
[info]blastarrbxiii wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 11:28 am (UTC)
Major public safety fears, what a load of rubbish.
Parents should not have 3 year old children naked in public in the first place, even outside their own house or in a 'garden square'.
That is the parents fault, not Googles.

As if some pervert is going to trawl through the entirety of the new Google Street View road mapping service to see the odd image of naked children.
Or some bogus 'Terrorism threat', yea, like MP's are easy victims to assaults in the street, but some photo of their house will enpower someone to do them harm!

As for NIMBY Tony Bliar and co wanting their house blacked out, this will only bring about the 'Streisand effect' and there will be web sites detailing every blacked out houses.

Totally absurb.
It's nothing for anyone to get their knickers in a twist.
Moreso would be all the CCTV camaras in Britain, I bet many are able to be hacked into as are telephone conversations and internet traffic.
Re: Never read such NIMBY rubbish.
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 11:51 am (UTC)
Google the following INURL lines:

inurl:axis-cgi/jpg

...or...

inurl:axis-cgi/mjpg

...or...

intitle:"live view" intitle:axis

There you go. Hours of fun in the office!
Re: Never read such NIMBY rubbish. - [info]blastarrbxiii - Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 11:52 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Never read such NIMBY rubbish. - [info]dogsolitude_v2 - Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 12:07 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 11:56 am (UTC)
You can actually hunt for live security camera output on Google.

Type, or copy and paste the following into Google and have a nose round the links. Some are better than others:

inurl:axis-cgi/jpg

inurl:axis-cgi/mjpg

intitle:"live view" intitle:axis

intitle:"live view" intitle:axis site:uk

Have fun!
google street
[info]ninjalimpet wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 12:27 pm (UTC)
i don't believe there is a god or many gods possibly watching my life enfold.......but perhaps i would rather that than a global electronic eye invading my privacy........its supporters will be the first to complain when the spying eye reveals their human weaknesses (be it picking their nose, masturbating in a corn field, skipping work to bird watch, meeting a lover or letting the dog pooh on the neighbours garden, again)....are people so out of touch with their own existence that they need to tap into the mundane minutia of strangers for virtual thrills......get a life....get your own life......i claim the right to my own.
Is this really such a big deal?
[info]jagasar wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC)
Google Street View has been available in the US for some time. I find it interesting and fun. The point about the ease that we can watch CCTV footage is well made. These are public views, and there is the opportunity for individuals to request removal of pictures (unlike the CCTV streams), and you report these requests as being speedily executed. It is ridiculous to remove pictures of Downing Street when any passer-by can photograph it. I think this is much ado about nothing.
Re: Is this really such a big deal?
[info]kidskare wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:35 am (UTC)
google from afar is nothing. anyone that chooses can access your home, business, or personal cell phone. nothing you can do about it. there is no longer privacy for anyone.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date