Can Google "Street View" Steal Your Soul?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: August 28, 2007 10:45:31 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Can Google "Street View" Steal Your Soul?



                Can Google "Street View" Steal Your Soul?

               http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000277.html
             http://forums.pfir.org/main/messages/663/702.html


Greetings.  Various ancient civilizations, and a surprising number
of people in contemporary cultures, have believed that cameras and
their photographs have the power to steal one's soul, to imprison
it in emulsion or (in today's terms) image data.

It's generally acknowledged by the scientific community that cameras
do not have any direct soul-stealing power (with the possible
exception of the 1960s' infamous Polaroid "Swinger" camera --
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P7krbkPJ0Os ).

Yet, I'm increasingly fielding e-mail and phone calls from persons
who seem to believe that photographs taken in public can do them
serious damage, and both legislatures and courts are moving to
impose limits on previously public photos.  These range from
preventing people from taking photographs or videos of bridges and
highways to ordering a professed pedophile not to take photos of
children (despite his lack of any criminal record and claims not to
act on his impulses).  There are many other examples between these
two data points, as well.

Some of this flaring up of photography concerns was triggered by
9/11 ("Who would take photos of bridges except potential terrorists?"
is the implicit assumption).  Lately, more negative reaction appears
to have been triggered by Google Maps "Street View," which while not
the first street-level Internet photo application, is in my opinion
the slickest and best implemented -- and it's those very qualities
that seems to freak many people out totally.  I'm on record as not
seeing significant privacy problems with the current Street View
implementation ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000244.html ), and
I believe that restrictions on public photography can do serious
harm to public safety.  However, there are those in the privacy and
broader Internet community who strongly disagree with me on this
issue, pointing for example to the recent case of a teacher being
humiliated by an anonymous, "dishonestly" edited YouTube video,
among many other examples (a particularly egregious example to be
sure, but perhaps more specifically related to YouTube editorial
policies -- an important topic in and of itself -- rather than
broader public photography issues).

It can be argued that the legal concepts we have of privacy and any
abilities to "control one's image" (or lack of such abilities) have
been outdated by the rise of instant Internet distribution of photos,
YouTube, and the like, where perceived "damage" can be done almost
immediately upon an item being posted, and even later removal of
such materials from their original distribution point does little to
stem their continuing flow around the Net.  This is an extremely
difficult problem, where "simple" solutions are likely to be the
least palatable in the long run.

Some observers argue that celebrities already have considerable
means to control uses of their images, and that anti-paparazzi laws
in some locales are also largely aimed at helping that same
demographic, rather than ordinary folks.

I personally remain highly dubious regarding how significant new
photographic "controls" can be imposed without triggering massively
unwarranted restrictions and potentially very dangerous collateral
damage.  I really don't like the idea of public photographic
restrictions except perhaps in extremely narrow and rare
circumstances.  But, given that judges and legislators are already
moving toward broader controls, intellectual honesty requires that
we ask the related key questions.

The questions: Is it desirable -- and practical -- to impose
relatively broad restrictions on public still or motion photography
of individuals, property, or other locations, and/or the posting of
such imagery on the Internet or in other venues?  If you're in favor
of such restrictions, how far would you go?  How would you impose
and monitor such restrictions?  How would you propose that the
balance between the public's "right to know" and private concerns be
suitably balanced?  Would such restrictions be starting us down a
slippery slope toward making virtually all public photography
illegal, with potentially unpredictable consequences?  Or, do you
have a formula that you believe could impose your desired restrictions
without such damage?

I'd be very interested in your responses and discussion, particularly
over in the PFIR Forums Google Maps discussion area
( http://forums.pfir.org/main/messages/663/702.html ).

Thanks very much.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com