"Richard Thomas, UK ICO, said: "European data protection law is increasingly seen as out of date, bureaucratic and excessively prescriptive. It is showing its age and is failing to meet new challenges to privacy, such as the transfer of personal details across international borders and the huge growth in personal information online."

Maybe we want our data protection laws to be prescriptive. Maybe we want our personal data to be kept within our own national boundaries. Maybe we want our privacy!

That those that drive the cars and those who look at this "street" (read terrorist-peado) view are obviously terrorist peadophiles and the police should lock them all up.

I hope the government is all over this blatent risk.

Yes, I'm sure the ICO will enforce the law on this in the same way that they have done with BT's illegal Phorm trials.

Mind you, if Google's engineers simply claim that it's too difficult for people to understand what they're doing, that appears to be a perfectly valid justification these days...

I was surprised to see the spymobile in E11. Sadly it was coming out of a junction before I spotted it so I won't be immortalised. If I understand the law correctly people can take photos of you if you're in a public place, unless you are a paedo-terrorist taking photos of naked children in nuclear power plants.

"International Nuclear Non-Proliferation law is increasingly seen as out of date, bureaucratic and excessively prescriptive. It is showing its age and is failing to meet new challenges in international nuclear politics, such as the transfer of fissile materials across international borders and the huge increase in oil prices.

"It is high time the law is reviewed and updated for the modern world."

In other words, just because there is a legitimate reason for reform (countries frozen out of civil nuclear generation at a time when it is finally starting to look economical and possibly even necessary) doesn't mean we should let totalitarian foreign regimes get whatever they want. (Do you want the US to get the bomb? What do you mean "they've already got it"?!? What do you mean "don't panic"?!?!? We're all doomed!!!!)

Some parts of the privacy directive may make legitimate commerce more difficult, but I'd strongly object to Google being able to take pictures of anything and everything simply to make a quick buck.

If they're not willing to engage in an editorial process (yes, I know -- people! how disgusting! let's stick with nice clean computers) then any system they produce will be flawed and potentially damaging.

Google's line has always been "not my fault, mate! I'm just a computer!" Yeah, well guess what: there would be fewer mistakes if you actually employed people. So how can it *not* be their fault if their many court-worthy mistakes were caused by negligence?

Really, who gives a damn? What next, government-issue brown paper bags to put over our heads before we step out the front door, in case "they" find out where we're going?

Are basing their claim on Google "using peoples' faces to make money". Which is bollocks, frankly. They're not using the fact that there are people in the pictures any more than Televised sport owes anything to the people whose faces they focus on in the crowd, or the Beeb or any photograph library owes to the people whose faces are captured in crowd pics.

The faces are nothing to do with making the money and Google could erase everyone from their panoramas withoug impacting the usefulness of Street View and hence any revenue generated from associated advertising.

Chicken Little/Licken complaints like this do the privacy lobby no good whatsoever.

Typical red tape. So what if it's used for commercial purposes? It's not like they're taking your face and turning it into their logo. If I can walk down the street and see the same as what these street cars would see, then what's the difference? That woman with the thong - what's the difference if it's with my own eyes or through google streetview? Same with the dude pissing - if he's willing to be in public like that, then why would he claim it was an invasion of privacy if someone took a photo of him?

If people are scared to be seen then they shouldn't bother leaving the house in the morning

so long as they aren't doing it in Trafalgar Sq or the Royal Parks, they're OK by me.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/police_photographer_stops/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/photography_law/

Or, are they creating "document or record containing information”... “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"

matthew karas

Has two out of three right. The European data protection laws are out of date and bureaucratic, but he is mind numbingly wrong about them being too prescriptive - they aren't strong enough.

Privacy law here will only be adequate when certain members of the civil service and government (those for the current ID card database, and those who leave laptops on trains) and the entire board of Phorm are locked up with no hope of parole.

If you want privacy, why don't you just stay indoors 24/7?

This is ridiculous really. Why can't they take photos and put them on a site? If you are out in public, there is every chance you could end up in a photo, and nothing you can do about it. Caught doing something embarrassing? Well, don't do embarrassing things.

Worrying about this when the EU is proposing that THEY control what applications we can use on the Internet?

It seems that once again people get up in arms other something that frankly is of little concern when a huge chunk of our Civil Liberties is potentially about to vanish

According to the FFI the proposals which will be voted on tomorrow would create 'a "Soviet internet" on which only software and services approved by governments would be allowed to run.

"Tomorrow, popular software applications like Skype or even Firefox might be declared illegal in Europe if they are not certified by an administrative authority,"'

If the Foogle car wants to come and take pictures of my front law then let them. I'd rather that than have my internet controlled by people who have been bought off by Microsoft.

Given that StreetView counts as publication, shouldn't they be requesting consent before making the pictures live? (Which would entail the kind of bureaucratic nightmare that would make them rethink the point of the entire thing, which I have yet to have explained to me in a way that doesn't have me responding "What a fucking waste of time").

On a more serious note, those who think that this isn't important should bear in mind that allowing people to take and publish your image without first requesting consent could have serious implications, not least when it comes to the right to retain control over how (and where) your likeness is used.

Of course they're not. They're a multi-national company.

They only have your best interests at heart.

whilst having a smoke outside the pub.

gave the one fingered salute to all 3 cameras as it drove by.

On the one hand we can't be complaining that the police are being heavy handed with people taking photographs in public places yet then get prissy about a google street view car.

If you are in public then you are in public and that's that. Don't want to be photographed pissing in the street? Don't do it then. Don't want your pants on display on the web? Don't put them on display in public then.

My only reservation is that the camera on top of the car should be no more than six feet from ground level to ensure that it does not see any more than what the general public walking along the pavement can see.

Just my single middle finger turned upright as it cut me up whilst I was struggling on my bike up highgate west hill.

Not sure they're software has a blur setting for "scary fat lycra clad swetting man."

As long as the photos are being taken from public property (i.e. government controlled street), and are not being taken of restricted subjects (i.e. nuclear weapon storage facilities) then the whiners don't have a leg to stand on. You're in public. You can be photographed. End of discussion.

I think its a great idea. I've got no issues with being immortalised on Google.

I notice the same privacy people weren't vocal with the Satellite maps on Google Maps and other mapping systems like Live Maps. I was on an estate agents site and they use www.aboutmyplace.co.uk got one with really good detail from birds eye perspectives. I can see my car on that one! I can see my car (but not as much detail) on Google Maps too.

Let them do it - the quicker GPS systems can provide photographic street views etc the better. Sick of people holding up good technology with claims terrorism and "think of the children".

It's got a chuffing great piece of scaffolding on the top covered in cameras? If it was a "spy" it wouldn't be very succesful.

I'm reminded of Homer Simpson's attempt to catch Apu selling dodgy food with a giant camera concealed in a huge cowboy hat - it was not exactly subtle.

OMG the Modaratrix has weighed into this arguement! I don't think that privacy is the issue. The camera takes pictures of publicly visible things. I have accepted that there are perverts in basements wanking over pictures of what I got up to last weekend on CCTV but I am concerned about privacy with respect to my web surfing habits, my personal data and what I get up to inside my own home. Privacy applies in places where privacy is expected and not in public places.

A lot of people mention the fact that its perfectly legal to take pictures in a public place (e.g Roadwars on Sky One). The thing is, these cameras aren't restricted or filtered purely to public places, they drive past homes and if you happen to have no nets on those curtains and are walking around your own home naked...

Paris because I want to see her naked without nets

I for one generally approve of the Google StreetView idea. I see no problem with public photos that arent forcefully entering private property (although do think that the idea above of only being 6 foot high is worthy of note). I can also see its use for helping people find their way to unknown places. Things look very different from the ground than on a map, and it could help some people no end.

Re:

"On a more serious note, those who think that this isn't important should bear in mind that allowing people to take and publish your image without first requesting consent could have serious implications, not least when it comes to the right to retain control over how (and where) your likeness is used."

-> Members of the public can be in photographs in public places (although Special (needs) Constables seem to need to learn this) without their express consent. And I for one am happy that is so. I wouldnt want such a nanny state that you cant do anything without it being rubber stamped and approved first. Besides, with a 'face-blurring system' in place they have partly covered their backs on that one.

"the camera on top of the car should be no more than six feet from ground level to ensure that it does not see any more than what the general public walking along the pavement can see"

Hmm. Should I shut my eyes next time I'm upstairs on a bus?

and if I were photographed it wouldn't cause me too much stress, if it was in public. If I was in my garden, however, which is visible from the street, then I'd be more-than-somewhat perturbed. Likewise if photographs of any of my children were taken anywhere, Having said that, I'd just ask them to take them down.

This is all assuming it isn't for profit. If it were, then I believe that they have to get permission of the indviduals concerned and/or pay royalties. Still doesn't mean they can't do it, just creates a few more hoops to jump through.

All in all, I come down on the side of allowing them to go ahead; the freedom to take photographs, sketches, etc of anywhere without seeking permission is a freedom we have all taken for granted for so long it's hard to believe that we're on the verge of having it taken away.

Black helicopters because it would be so much more cool if Google used those for StreetView imagery than those Pope-mobile things

Three problems.

1) There is only a right for you to take photos for personal use, not commercial.

2) There is one BIG problem they have. It is illegal to take photos of people near certain buildings. Places such as Drug Rehab, Hospitals or places of worship would all be a BIG no no, but I doute Google take these things in to account.

3) If I remember correctly there was a big legal spat between someone famous and a news paper a few years back about the paper taking pics of them going about there shopping. The paper lost.

Finally, on a separet note, I really hate Google saying "If you tell us we will take the photo down". Isn’t that a bit like a shop lifter saying "If you catch me I will give you the stuff back, so it’s all ok"?

Ah, but it *is* the issue. There is a fundamental difference between an individual taking pictures for personal use (whatever that might be), and a representative of a company taking pictures AND PUBLISHING THEM for commercial use.

The publication and the purpose of use is where privacy becomes a fundamental aspect of this issue.

asleep for so frigging long ??. You state, quote the article;

"Richard Thomas, UK ICO, said: "European data protection law is increasingly seen as out of date, bureaucratic and excessively prescriptive. It is showing its age and is failing to meet new challenges to privacy, such as the transfer of personal details across international borders and the huge growth in personal information online.

"It is high time the law is reviewed and updated for the modern world." END QUOTE

So why on earth has it taken you and your office the decade or more that the

internet become increasingly popular to wake up to this fact ????????

Same applied to the incompetent Labour Govt. To be honest EVERYTHING is bullshit .All these laws they say they make for our protection do not ever protect us. All the laws they say are ONLY going to be used in extreme terrorist cases are used because a dog crapped on the pavement. Why the F do we put up with this?? Lets have a revolution and get rid of this Government .

I for one generally approve of the Google StreetView idea. I see no problem with public photos that arent forcefully entering private property (although do think that the idea above of only being 6 foot high is worthy of note). I can also see its use for helping people find their way to unknown places. Things look very different from the ground than on a map, and it could help some people no end.

Re:

"On a more serious note, those who think that this isn't important should bear in mind that allowing people to take and publish your image without first requesting consent could have serious implications, not least when it comes to the right to retain control over how (and where) your likeness is used."

-> Members of the public can be in photographs in public places (although Special (needs) Constables seem to need to learn this) without their express consent. And I for one am happy that is so. I wouldnt want such a nanny state that you cant do anything without it being rubber stamped and approved first. Besides, with a 'face-blurring system' in place they have partly covered their backs on that one.

"I have accepted that there are perverts in basements wanking over pictures of what I got up to last weekend on CCTV"

Link please.

Well if you are standing in your own home naked or even humping your patio table and can be seen from the street then I can photograph you and report you for exposing yourself. It matters not if you are within your own property, the fact remains that you are in full view of someone standing on public property when you engage in your perverted table shagging behaviour.

Didn't the couple say that the drive to their house was marked "Private" and on their land? In that case, it was *not* a government owned street, the spyccar was not "just catching people in public doing whatever" - Google (actually, the driver) was breaking the law.

I think that is the point of this case, and if it is the truth - Google might as well write out that check now, unless they intend to throw the driver under the bus.

And that's exactly why Google will remove such photos if you ask nicely.

A good, if slightly contrary, arguement. People who live on a bus route would be wise to take extra precautions such as erecting a high hedge or simply either not sunbathing in the nude in their garden or humping their garden furniture. Those who do not live on bus routes have a reasonable expectation that a seven foot high hedge or fence will obscure them from view and allow them to shag their patio kit without fear of discovery.

People whining about new technologies and advancements in public facilities is beginning to get on my nerves. People want more and more things these days with a more 'life like/real world' touch (eg a map that can show you the actual street as you would see it!!) but dont want to think of themselves being in the map and just generally whining when someone tries to make these things happen.

I despair at modern society at times, I really do!

hmmm

but what about all those crappy police stop action shows?

No one seems to complain much about the cctv vomit those pieces of dumbed down crud piss into our lives?

I think it would be polite if they blured faces and license plates, just out of curtesy - but most reporting photography doesn't get a persons permission before hand, so it's a rather daft notion to be honest.

To the CCTV or the basement?

I think people might be misreading a comment. To claim the laws are too "prescriptive" suggests that they try to handle privacy with a collection of very specific conditions, and should be amended to be more generally applicable (and therefore more useful as the underlying specifics evolve.)

To say that a category of laws should be less prescriptive does not mean that they should be "relaxed," but rather that they should convey their intent with minimal reference to the current technologies to which they are seen to apply.

Prescribe: to lay down a rule

Proscribe: to condemn or forbid as harmful

I once got caught shagging by the CCTV cameras in the cashpoint lobby of my local HSBC. Apparently as I was on their property I couldn't do anything about it. They wouldn't even give me a copy of the tape to show my mates.....bastards.

Maybe... if the car was on private land then there is a problem. If the car was photographing stuff from the street then there is no problem.

No amount of 'private' signs will make a difference if the property is visible from the street.

No problem with Google photographing everything. Its not an invasion of privacy so long as all private scenes are blurred out. The request to be opted in instead of contacting them to opt-out.

On my walk to work I dread to think how many CCTV cameras I get caught on. I can even go to the TFL website and see some of these images on their traffic pages. What is the difference between Google and the government when it comes to taking photos of me in public? I have not given permission to either to take these photos.

If you are going to stop Google thats fine but take down all the CCTV in London while you're at it. I'm sure there are plenty of CCTV cameras that are pointing at private property.

seriously, who *actually* gives a guff about google taking a picture of them in the street?

a video I could find it in me to object to, but a quick snap in the street ? big whoop.

I don't understand why Google have to take their pictures in the middle of the day when people are out and about. They should run their photo safari in the early morning around sunrise.

From a photography perspective dawn and dusk are the times of day where the light conditions are best for taking pictures anyway. And from a practical perspective there are generally very few people on the street at -say- 4:30 am. After all, they want pictures of the street view, in other words, the fewer people and the fewer cars are around the better for the purpose.

No one I have spoken to for sure.

Maybe one or two people who seem to think they need to stand on a soap box, but come on who really cares? It's not like there is a DTG on the photo that tells your boss that when you were off sick you were actually banging his missus now is there?

Why can't people get a grip on reality. As for the "storm" do you mean those two people who are so fat and ugly they are embarrassed to be seen? If so - Join a gym you eejuts!!

I think it is pretty damn cool to be able to walk down my street and show people "Thats where I live", "thats my local pub", "Thats whereI lost my virginity", "Thats where obama is hiding"

@ Kyle:

>>>Ah, but it *is* the issue. There is a fundamental difference between an individual taking pictures for personal use (whatever that might be), and a representative of a company taking pictures AND PUBLISHING THEM for commercial use.

>>>

>>>The publication and the purpose of use is where privacy becomes a fundamental aspect of this issue.

If the issue is in the commercial use of the photos, then it cannot be a privacy issue. Example: I take pictures and post them on my personal website and label them public domain. Your "privacy" is just as "violated" but I have not used the photos for commercial purposes. No, you're not after privacy, you're after a cut of the profits. Those are two wholly separate issues.

@ AC:

>>>Didn't the couple say that the drive to their house was marked "Private" and on their land? In that case, it was *not* a government owned street, the spyccar was not "just catching people in public doing whatever" - Google (actually, the driver) was breaking the law.

Now, I don't know UK law, but in US law, it doesn't matter if you're in your backyard and that your backyard is private property. As long as I am on public property, I can point my camera any direction I choose and snap away.

@ Stephen:

>>>The thing is, these cameras aren't restricted or filtered purely to public places, they drive past homes and if you happen to have no nets on those curtains and are walking around your own home naked...

Nothing stops me from standing on the street watching you, and it's completely legal. If you're doing something where someone on public property could see you, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Regarding height of hedges, in the US, it's not uncommon for paparazzi to climb a tree near a house to take pictures over the hedge. This is completely legal. Trashy and lacking class, but legal.

People have gone over the hedge (badum!) with privacy. Yes, you are entitled to privacy, but not everywhere you think you are. Like when you have sex in a hotel room in Vegas. Guess what - you're on video. The only place they don't have cameras is in the bathrooms. You're at the mall in a tight skirt - there is nothing illegal about someone affixing a camera to their shoe and recording video up your skirt. The admittedly strange law in the US is that the video can't contain the subjects voice, or something equally odd. The point is, when you're in public, or when you are visible some public spaces (or from someone else's private property) you are not entitled to privacy. So you want to shag your patio furniture and think your 7 foot hedge is enough to give you a reasonable expectation of privacy from people on the street. What about people in the multi-level across the street?? What about people in nearby low flying aircraft? What about cameras mounted on big tripods on top of cars?

Don't be stupid.

"As long as the photos are being taken from public property (i.e. government controlled street), and are not being taken of restricted subjects (i.e. nuclear weapon storage facilities) then the whiners don't have a leg to stand on. You're in public. You can be photographed. End of discussion."

Ah well, how do they know that my underpants don't contain nuclear weapon storage facilities?

All those complaining about google would be better employed in complaining about the CCTV that is removing ALL privacy from the country!

Everyone gets riled up when a photographer is harassed in the street.

Rightly so.

Yet Google gets vilified for exercising the same "right".

See the irony?

So people in the country with the most number of surveillance cameras per citizen in the world that aren't covered by the Data Protection Act (if they're not targeted at a specific individual) are complaining about a car driving around taking pictures?

They think that's a breach of privacy, whilst the local council making sure you bag it after your dog does it isn't?

I'm Irish, but not even I'd be able to use *this* logic!

Paris, cos I doubt she'd understand it any better than I

There is no information about when any given image was made, and the images aren't updated very often (if at all!). So even if you can find a recognizable picture of yourself in one of these images, how is your privacy violated?

Is there a search function that would allow someone else to find your picture? No.

Is there a "trace" function that can tell all the places that you visited? No.

The mere existence on the web of a (not very distinct) photo of you (or someone with a vague resemblance to you) taken at an identifiable location but at an unspecified time in the past (at least months) is not an invasion of privacy.

"I don't understand why Google have to take their pictures in the middle of the day when people are out and about. They should run their photo safari in the early morning around sunrise."

A good point, with only two drawbacks:

1) Logistics - you are wasting, especially at the moment, a good 12-15 hours of good light time if you only go out at dawn and dusk.

2) Logistics - you are wasting, especially at the moment, a good 12-15 hours of good light time if you only go out at dawn and dusk.

I realise that's actually the same point twice, but I felt it was important enough to warrant repeating.

Apologies to Grant and Naylor, obviously.

Please come back when your head is screwed on - you are talking about making a couple of weeks of driving around various large cities instead take a several months. All on someones chargable time. [never mind the C-charge in London...assuming the vehicle isn't leccy/LPG anyway]

Steven R

you'd think people in the UK would be used to having their privacy invaded, since they're living in a country blanketed with CCTV cameras.. heh.

I'm more worried that an organisation like PayPal can take all its customer data to Luxembourg and thus avoid any data protection considerations at all. To then have EBay actively discourage the use of any other payment method as well leaves me with no privacy at all. I don't really care if someone I never met can see a photo of me in my car with my number plate showing if they just HAPPEN to be on the right part of google maps. What can they do with my number plate and an image of my face?!

It only infringes your privacy if you're doing something manifestly private (like for instance lounging in your private pool in your back garden - or indulging in some carnal activity in same). I'm sorry but walking/driving/cycling down a street is absolutely NOT private; anyone else walking the same street can see you - so what's the difference between seeing you there and seeing you on a computer screen?

To learn that the terms of use for any google service includes a clause stating that by using the service you consent to be photographed by them. That'd get rid of the complainers pretty quick.

"Come on - I don't think it's unreasonable to hope not to be at risk of ending up spread all over the internet because you leave the house now and then (and most embarrassing thing are accidental, no?). But even if that isn't realistic, I honestly don't get why people suddenly decide not to bother to value privacy at all just because it's harder to achieve these days, and it seems to be some kind of luxurious frippery. I don't know when it became normal to sneer at anyone who thinks privacy as a concept has intrinsic worth."

I'm not saying that privacy shouldn't be valued. I certainly wouldn't want my details plastered everywhere on the internet, or things I know, or what I get up to in private etc (no comments here please :P), but there are certain levels of expectation when it comes to privacy, and if I am out and about in public, walking on a street or whatever, I cannot reasonably expect noone to look at me, not to be photographed, not to be on CCTV etc. I really couldn't care if my image was somewhere on the internet (*gasp* people might find out what I look like and everything!) if it was in a public place. I don't expect privacy in public, I do expect privacy in... private! If I was doing something embarrassing at the time then I might ask them to remove it (depending on what it was of course) but its not like noone would have seen it anyway just because you got a single image of it removed.

To be honest, I'm as big a privacy advocate as anybody, but for some reason Streetview doesn't really worry me. I'm no more worried than making an unplanned appearance on Streetview than I would be about walking past a street-based bit of TV reportage or being in the crowd at a sporting event. Maybe it's just the geek in me outweighing the bolshy bastard for once.

Lots of rubbish about this being illegal - if you think that taking pictures in public places and using them for commercial purposes without a release statement is illegal please post the title of the act, paragraph and section number that proscribes this activity.

It's not illegal - you don't need any release forms. The way that you can tell this is that freelance photographers etc regularly take pictures of 'celebs' in public places and make lots of cash from selling them and most of the time the 'celeb' has not and would not give permission for these photos. However, they don't have any legal basis for stopping them.

There have been legal cases around photos but these have been related to reasonable expectations of privacy (Naomi Campbell coming out of a drug rehab session) and breach of contract and commercial confidence (Catherine Zeta Jones wedding pictures). Simple pictures of unnammed people on a city street would NOT fall under any UK privacy or related legislation. Simple As.

"I'm no more worried than making an unplanned appearance on Streetview than I would be about walking past a street-based bit of TV reportage or being in the crowd at a sporting event."

Do you think this is just an urban myth:

Man calls in sick.

Man goes to match.

Boss watches match.

Man gets blot on permanent record.

Now consider the legal/legitimate things that you may be doing that you don't want anyone knowing about: visiting the clap clinic; visiting the abortion clinic; leaving a mental institution; leaving a criminal reform institution; entering either of the aforementioned. One accidental viewing lets the cat out of the bag -- offering to take down the picture on request doesn't undo the damage.

Google's editorial policy, "do no editing", is negligent in that it is potentially harmful. They do not filter out sensitive data. Would a newspaper show a picture of a random punter leaving the clap clinic? No, because they could get sued.

I'm fed up to the back teeth of Google getting away with this sort of thing because they choose -- yes, CHOOSE -- to publish without vetting any of their material.

Hang em out to dry.

But, AC, don't you see? Boss may have taken leave and gone to the match himself; in which case he'd STILL see "Man". That particular example is nothing to do with "Electronic Privacy", it's about "Man" being an idiot and using sickness as an excuse.

"Sensitive Data" is only sensitive when the content is sensitive - like for instance a picture of a person coming out of a clap clinic. Yes, by all means, let's get those edited to protect the poor chap who went into the clap clinic to fix the receptionist's PC/meet a friend/whatever. But general images of people walking down the street?! They're meaningless! So I'm all for sensitive locations getting the edit treatment; but not blanket blurring of people's faces/registration numbers for no good reason.

" If you want privacy, why don't you just stay indoors 24/7? "

" If you are out in public, there is every chance you could end up in a photo, and nothing you can do about it. "

That is why the law needs to be changed.

The laws on taking photos in public were made in a time where few people owned a camera. (or everyone had one, but few used it unless it was a special occasion) I remember going on Holidays, spending £20 on film for the camera.

I remember going places and not taking a camera at all because I would need to take a big chunky camera, it would cost me £5 for film for the camera, £5 and 1 week to get it developed. The pictures would probably not turn out and if I wanted different sizes I would need to keep the negatives, take them back to the shop and pay to get them printed again.

Now everyone has a camera and everything is getting posted everywhere. There are practically live streams from people's mobile phones. Okay not quite..but I would not be surprised if that is what happens next.

I don't see why, because I HAVE to go out, am FORCED to go out, that someone should be able to take advantage of the situation and there's nothing I can do about it.

I don't go out when I am okay with the idea of getting my picture taken. I go out when I need to go out. I have been outside crying my eyes out, bleeding, in ridiculous clothing, in ripped clothing, lying about where I was (for whatever reason), with a botched hair job, extremely tired, very ill.. (not all at the same time, haha) etc.

I would not want my picture taken in these situations, and almost all of them were necessary and not my fault, as I was already outside somewhere and simply trying to make my way back to the safety and 'privacy' of my home, hoping that no-one saw me.

What's so freaking hard about them blurring faces,windows&numberplates?

Can someone please explain the benefit that NOT blurring them serves? Surely even if we look at it on a scale. Problems vs Benefits.. erring on the side of caution by blurring stuff makes the most sense? Why are you so unbelievably in favor of a company going around taking pictures of people without their permission and posting it to an audience of millions. Please ?

Moonwalk - They are actually putting a stop to that, under yes, privacy concerns and abuse of the technology..

I can actually understand blurring out number plates, they do that with "reality" TV shows using dash-cams and the like. Those are "more" identifiable, I think, and deserve some privacy.

I'm not sure where you get being "able to take advantage of the situation" of you going out though (serious question).

I mean, if you go out, hordes of people can see you. What makes being seen in a picture on the 'net that millions of people "could" see any different than walking down the road where everyone can see you "real time"?

I'll believe they'll stop abuse of CCTV by "authorities" when I see it (no pun intended). It just means those "authorities" will need to get more creative with their justifications - especially if the DPA makes it near-impossible for people to know they were even monitored to begin with.

The downside to a totalitarian democracy is it's all too easy to say surveillance is for the ethereal "public good".

It really is hard for me to reconcile the arguments against Google Street View with the support (or at least acceptance) of governmental monitoring. One is more about the places, the other is absolutely about the people.