What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
42 Comments
- DrNemo, on 11/15/2009, -2/+17That's the view of a single bureaucrat, not of the entire Swiss people.
- candorny, on 11/15/2009, -9/+19What is funny is that when Google complies with China's censorship, people defend them by saying that they have to abide bythe rules of the country they are operating in. Yet apparently the same does not apply here.
- sirblackjack, on 11/15/2009, -0/+8If you take a picture of someone, you need his or her consent in Switzerland (also Germany). Taking a picture on a public street where there are more then 5 people present, then you would not everyones individual permission.
This discussion between google and the swiss privacy comissioner has been going on for a couple of months now. Google always promissed that they would remove all people / license plates / etc. visible in the pictures. So far they still have not removed all traces in the pictures. That's why Thür keeps putting pressure on google. - TotalHalibut, on 11/15/2009, -6/+12Would someone mind explaining to me why you believe you have a right to privacy on a public street?
- Stalks, on 11/15/2009, -1/+7"Scoping out" a building is to determine what the occupants living patterns are, not something that can be obtained from a couple of photos.
- BerateBirthers, on 11/15/2009, -7/+12You aren't Swiss. That's their view and Google should follow it.
- lurrch1, on 11/15/2009, -6/+11I would like Google to to take my house off of street views. If someone is going to rob my home, it'd be nice if they actually had to creep around out front to 'scope it out'.
- kylescousin, on 11/14/2009, -4/+9Great publicity for google.
- kero552, on 11/15/2009, -0/+4It is a matter of scale. It is probably not illegal to kill one ant. But when you kill them by millions, it is.
Also, I don't know about USA, but here it is legal to take a picture of public place for private use, but publishing it is rather tricky and has a lot of legal baggage that can come up with it. Not that it is enforced, but it is there. - KevinRowz, on 11/15/2009, -2/+5What are you talking about? The guy is claiming Google refused to comply with Switzerland's privacy requests.
If anything, this could lead to similar probing of Google Street View in countries who notice this scuffle from the sidelines, who so far have maybe not given the matter very much consideration and have allowed Google's cameras to roam freely.
There definitely is such a thing as bad publicity. After you get to the top, the only way to go is down. - Stalks, on 11/15/2009, -3/+6Read the article? They were originally given the go-ahead and now a minister has changed his mind.
- ayeroxor, on 11/15/2009, -5/+8Well this should fail miserably. In most civilized societies, you can do anything as long as there's no law against it. You can't be prosecuted for something that somebody thinks "should" be illegal but isn't. And last I checked, it's not illegal to take a picture from a public street, or you'd seriously hamper the tourism industry...
- Mujokan, on 11/15/2009, -1/+4Switzerland's very big both on individual rights and also responsibilities. Seems to work pretty well in most cases. They're trying to improve privacy. Google declined to comply with the requests -- it'd doubtless cost them a whole lot more to reshoot and reblur so much stuff than to defend the case in court, so it's a logical step for them.
- LibertariansLOL, on 11/15/2009, -1/+4yeah google is just an unknown startup yearning for recognition
- Cryoniq, on 11/15/2009, -2/+5Remember people.. Swizerland IS NOT SWEDEN!!!!!!! It is NOT IN SWEDEN! It is NOT REALLY NEAR SWEDEN!
SWEDEN IS NOT A PART OF GERMANY!
Swizerland is BELOW GERMANY.
Sweden is ABOVE GERMANY, ABOVE DENMARK.
And no.. there are no polarbears in Sweden. And we do not live in igloos.
But we got blond babes with nice boobs, and easy to get laid after a couple of drinks (and that goes for the male counterpart as well I heard..)
Felt I had to point this out before someone still haven't understood the difference.. there is always somone.. I know you are there.
(oh... and the great Swedish health care system and so on everyone praise? Well.. the current gov is tearing it apart now and making the sick ones cured by law like magic, forcing them out to get jobs that not even healthy people get or are available - for 223 swedish kronors minus tax a day (1 dollar is about 6-7 swedish kronors, and rent cost about in average 5000 swedish kronors a month for a person.. you do the math.. social wellfare gone up 20% since they started this Nazi Aktion T4 Pre WW2 tactics on us Swedes.. breaking the UN treaty of human rights.. wish I was born norwegian out from this..) - Landgarbe, on 11/15/2009, -1/+4That's not the problem in Switzerland. The problem are the faces of people that are clearly visible.
When you start shooting pictures of people on a grand scale, and publish these picture on the internet making money, then it gets illegal. What's wrong with that? - Schmich, on 11/15/2009, -0/+3Switzerland has something called a referendum. A true one where any law, whether it's a state (canton) or federal one, can put be to vote if you get enough public signatures. Something other countries should follow suit on, first thing to come to mind is the US and the popular Patriot Act.
So if it's against the law it's the Swiss' people's view. The question is if it is against the law. Switzerland has very strict rules when it comes CCTV/webcams due to being concerned with privacy, again something other countries should look to.
Personally I wouldn't put Street View in that category, plus it's a one-time recording with the possibility to blur things you don't want people to see. I would myself line up on the road just to get seen!
Btw, I'm not Swiss, I'm Swedish but I grew up there. - Mujokan, on 11/15/2009, -1/+4http://www.admin.ch/aktuell/00089/index.html?lang= ...
- Mujokan, on 11/15/2009, -0/+3They were given the go-ahead, sure, but after they then go ahead they still have to comply with the law. Now they'll go to court to decide whether that's the case. Nothing unusual about that.
- Qumahlin, on 11/15/2009, -0/+3"it'd doubtless cost them a whole lot more to reshoot and reblur so much stuff than to defend the case in court, so it's a logical step for them."
Actually the more logical step would be to just delete all the data since Google really doesn't make any money off of street view, not even standard advertising...
If the swiss don't want google streeview then fine, get rid of it. Shut off Gmail and any other Google services as well and see how that goes over with the populace. - sirblackjack, on 11/15/2009, -0/+2I hope you were trying to make a joke there:
Whilst the Swedish commissioner... - Cryoniq, on 11/15/2009, -0/+2Yepp! That is true. Denmark got really nice things going on with the society. Heard friends moving there and working there they have very nice child care system and helping workers and sick people by not ripping the rugg away from beneath their feet. Same thing with Norway and Finland. Honestly I don't know what the heck is wrong with Sweden, but it is getting worse. Social foundation is being sold out totaly and tax money is dissapperas into /dev/null.
And our gov is like.. *love USA, bending over for u long time, we wanna be lik youuuuu*
And the people is like *wtf.. wait.. are you..? You are fracking me over! But .. ok.. I just put a sticker on my car about this bananarepublic wrapped in lies it is a democratic system* - DrNemo, on 11/15/2009, -0/+2I'm not sure that every laws is subject to vote by the population, and you know, it's always a majority who decides. There is still a minority that loses in the process. Also, time passes, people too. Even if the law was voted by the population at a given time, it may have well been twenty years ago. Democracy is really a stupid system that doesn't give any "voice" to the people; it only gives a marginal voice to a majority to coerce over a minority on a certain subject at a given time.
- Stalks, on 11/15/2009, -1/+3@sirblackjack: Oops, mistake :( Seconds away from being able to edit it too, shame.
@Landgarbe: I have no idea, I'm not American? - kylescousin, on 11/15/2009, -2/+3It's still publicity. People who don't know about google street view will be curious about it. People who do know it won't stop using it, nor will they stop using any other products of google. And Google will probably even win this case, costing the Swiss privacy commissioner's company a lot of money. I don't think any outcome of this case will result in any damage on google's side.
- risotto, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1It's not about taking pictures of a public street, it's about *keeping a permanent record* about where a person was on a public street. That constitutes an invasion of a person's privacy. Sadly in a lot of countries such as the US and the UK such values are not held up high anymore.
- 1x253, on 11/15/2009, -1/+2Actually the cost of litigation right here in the U.S. is extraordinarily expensive when going up against a corporation, but if you're going up against the Swiss gov in their jurisdiction you're going to spend a ***** lot more than was spent hiring drivers. They don't have an in-house counsel TEAM (cause it's going to take a LOT of research) that specializes in international law/ EU/Swiss jurisdiction, so they're going to have to hire a firm or TWO.
There is no way in hell that drivers pay is going to come remotely close to the amount of money it will cost to litigate this thing for Google. - osok, on 11/15/2009, -0/+1and they keep getting whooped by Denmark.
- ayeroxor, on 11/15/2009, -0/+1Kind of like your complete ignorance of punctuation and complete lack of ability to make a cohesive statement, candorzny.
- 1x253, on 11/15/2009, -2/+2
Here comes the parade of Google fanboy apologists asking in their most condescending tone,"What's the BIG DEAL?!"
Here's some news for all you fanboys out their: Google wouldn't spend one tiny little second going out of their way to defend all you tools or the rights you don't seem to give a ***** about, but on you rage in favor of Google.
You're like the guy that refers to his hometown sports franchise as "WE". You so desperately need to belong that you don't even care if what your rabidly defending is behemoth corporation. Go to a strip club or a whore house; take the edge off. - merlin99, on 11/16/2009, -0/+0Big Brother comes to a town near you. Today, tomorrow, all year round.
- candorny, on 11/15/2009, -5/+5I did read the article. YOU obviously did not. They were gtiven the go ahead IF they met very specific guidelines which they did not even attempt to do.
There was no changing of the mind by the Swiss government at all.
Nice try though. I amd sure hate Sergey and Lerry will let you suck their ***** now for defending precious Google at all costs. Even if it mean destroying your own credibility. (But at least you will soon know what bilionarie semen will taste like, right?) - msaroka, on 11/15/2009, -3/+3Why is it invading privacy when Google's van drives the street that anyone can drive down?
- candorny, on 11/15/2009, -1/+1I love you your complete ignorance of laws of other countries just make you look foolish ayerozxor.
- candorny, on 11/15/2009, -0/+0Not only are laws in other coutnries different, but Google's cameras are hihgh enough to see over fences...and evn in the US, that can be against anti-paparazzi laws that says people DO have a right to privacy on their own property of the cameraperson has to use extraordinary means to get the picture video. It was implemented after hte famous Jennifer Aniston topless photo.
- candorny, on 11/15/2009, -0/+0Because they have their cameras propped up high enough to see over fences.
- ayeroxor, on 11/15/2009, -1/+1It's what artists have been doing for centuries. So yes, what's wrong with it?
- candorny, on 11/15/2009, -0/+0You shouldn't HAVE to blur your images.
I bet you whine like little bitches at Opt Out things when it is not Google. Well, this is an Opt Out situation. Google ASSUMES you want in and you have to tell them you want out. That is ***** and if Microsoft did itm, you would be whining like a little bitch about it. - Stalks, on 11/15/2009, -4/+3I believe you have misinterpreted the article by mixing up statements from differing paragraphs.
Whilst the Swedish commissioner is now saying that Google must halt their work until conditions are met, Google was not given such demands when they originally approached the government.
The Google blog, linked in the article states:
-- "Before the launch in Switzerland, we made sure we spoke to privacy regulators and other interested groups to give them an opportunity to ask questions and raise any concerns they might have.
[...]
So we were pleased when the Swiss DPA gave us the green light to launch the product, confirming our understanding that Street View is legal under Swiss law.
[...]
Herr Thuer changed his mind a few days after launch" - testore, on 11/15/2009, -2/+0Novody here cares about Sweden. Not even one Switzerland here.
- Landgarbe, on 11/15/2009, -6/+1SWISS not Swedish. Why is distiguishing the two so hard for Americans?
- ghostborg, on 11/15/2009, -7/+0Paranoia, sure sign of drugs.
The Google Van must of caught someone naked.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is