Comments on: Google Street View: All the World’s a Stage

By: William McGeveran

William McGeveran — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:05:50 +0000

Maryland Conservatarian:

Yes.

(Well, maybe “denounce” is a bit stronger than what we are all saying here about these issues, but definitely “find it worrisome.”)

Freedom of association is ideologically neutral.

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:53:10 +0000

Let’s put aside the cliched antiwar demonstration example; instead let’s imagine it’s a Pro-life march in Washington to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade – the left doesn’t want that archived for later use in case one of the marchers comes up for a federal judicial appointment? You would all denounce such a use and find it worrisome?

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:26:56 +0000

The problem with point number two is the fact that one’s chances of ending up in the on-line imagery (or even the imagery that doesn’t pass muster) are remarkably low.

Using the example of an anti-war demonstration, my guess is that your chances of ending up “on file” as a result of publicized domestic surveillance programs are far greater.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:59:23 +0000

William: yes, that “boundary between public and private spheres” is the big issue here. Do we want to preserve that boundary–or find some creative ways of managing or regulating the data compilers now breaching it?

Jim: Perhaps those are more promising causes of action. As P& K say, “On the public street, or in any other public place, [a person] has no legal right to be alone.” W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 117, at 855 (5th ed. 1984).

But I have to admit that I find it unsettling that there is a new “burden” associated with, say, opening one’s curtains. People should be able to let in air and light without having to worry that their possessions (and, say, campaign signs on windows) will be in some database for eternity.

Perhaps the cataloging of streetviews can be modeled as a “loss of privacy” externality.

By: Jim Graves

Jim Graves — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:41:07 +0000

Wouldn’t a claim for publication of private facts or misappropriation of image have a better chance in this case than intrusion? It seems unlikely that people could claim a reasonable expectation of seclusion when they’re in public.

For example, consider the Streetview pictures of men on their way into strip clubs. Is the problem that they were intruded upon, or is the real problem that the publication of the fact that they went into the strip club?

By: William McGeveran

William McGeveran — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:37:32 +0000

Very thoughtful post, Frank.

Beyond government uses and possible misuses of data in “immense, cross-checkable databases” like Google and Yahoo!, don’t forget their accessibility to everyone else too. It is only a matter of time before technology allows at least some significant degree of image-based search from your desktop, so that it will not even be necessary for someone to tag a photo in order for it to be linked to you. (Never mind the additional potential problem of errors in such automated matching and the resulting false positives!)

If neighbors, blind dates, and future employers can one day call up these images as easily as they now call up textual content about you, we will poke another big hole in the boundary between public and private spheres. As with future government uses, all these pictures that are getting stored now will, presumably, be available for searching by such technology later.

By: Big Brother

Big Brother — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:14:25 +0000

This is definitely 1984′ish. Check out this huge list of Google Street View privacy invasions:

http://streetviewgallery.corank.com