CSC 379:Week 4, Group 5: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Google Mapping Technology== | ==Google Mapping Technology== | ||
On the surface the Google Mapping Technology seems like a useful service, but at what cost? Just recently the White House requested that parts of the Washington D.C. area be censored for security and privacy issues. This could be said for other institutions and individuals concerned with their privacy. | |||
===Ethical implications of mapping technologies=== | ===Ethical implications of mapping technologies=== | ||
====Privacy==== | |||
The houses of celebrities, government officials, and co-workers will be compromised by anyone wanting to spy or monitor for some personal gain or benefit. On the other hand, I could search and see a map of the neighborhood I used to live in when I was a kid or what route to take when traveling to another state. | |||
====Security==== | |||
This is related to privacy and could be targeted to delinquent planning to steal house or business valuables. At the same time a snapshot can be used as evidence that a certain individual was trespassing or spying on someone. | |||
====Legal==== | |||
Some countries, states, national parks/monuments, or key locations may have laws against taking photographs. On the other hand it would be neat to see how the NC zoo is organized and how crowded it is at times from a Google snapshot. | |||
====Aproved/Unaproved Use==== | |||
Unapproved use of Google map resources and features will require and cost Google resources to submit a cease and desist request. Approved use of Google services and features will bring new sources of revenue and business opportunities. | |||
====Insecure Technology==== | |||
Security exploits to the new technologies used by Google will or may negatively affect the company and any of its users. If the technologies prove useful, other companies will evaluate and adopt similar technology and development practice. | |||
====Emerging Google Map Features==== | |||
The click-to-call feature can be useful at times if I forget my dentist's phone number. I can "Google Map" to it and click the building to auto dial the Dentist's phone number. The issues with these new add-on features to the Google Map services is that they will append to the already mounting ethical issues of privacy and security of a company or individual. | |||
*[http://www.google.com/help/faq_clicktocall.html Click-to-call Feature] | |||
===Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there?=== | ===Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there?=== | ||
This is a nice Google service feature if used with the right intent, to look up directions and routes to a company (for example). For the moment this feature has proved beneficial to the company and its users. The problem is that they did not take into consideration security and privacy issues from the beginning to assure that the rights of people or countries are supported as specified by their laws. From the point of view of competition asking for permission for every map location would have proven too costly to release. From this point of view it is understandable why the service was released this way. If anyone has a problem or conflict with the provided maps they should request they are removed from the Service like the White House did. | |||
===Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical | ===Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical?=== | ||
Requests from censorship of public photography has the same issues (or even more) of Photojournalism. Publishing these public photos for some journalistic intent has produced some controversy. Good journalist organizations have had the time to develop some ethical standards. Other issues have not been resolved, like the abuse of celebrity privacy from the paparazzi. | |||
===As mapping imagery increases in coverage and resolution over time, should there be limits set or censorship mandated to protect the public from lawful but invasive and sometimes unwanted photography?=== | ===As mapping imagery increases in coverage and resolution over time, should there be limits set or censorship mandated to protect the public from lawful but invasive and sometimes unwanted photography?=== | ||
We would all like to thing that there would be some limits set by our respected officials and public representatives. The problem is that we have not done this censorship in similar situations as described in the previous question. Unfortunately these limits may vary from different countries and organizations that will not be effective. | |||
==Google Street View== | |||
== | ===Overview=== | ||
Google recently launched a new tool called "Street View", which allowed users to view street-level images of selected major cities in the US. Although such images are legal, many claim that posting them on the internet without consent or any apparent censorship violates their privacy. | Google recently launched a new tool called "Street View", which allowed users to view street-level images of selected major cities in the US. Although such images are legal, many claim that posting them on the internet without consent or any apparent censorship violates their privacy. | ||
===Concerns about Lack of Censorship=== | |||
One of the largest concerns among critics of Street View is that Google made no effort to censor peoples' faces or license plate numbers, so individuals and their vehicles are easily identifiable to whoever views the images. Also, these photographs were taken without first making people aware that they were about the be photographed. Many say this is unethical because it takes away a person's choice to be viewable by millions and also has the potential to catch some people in embarrassing or unfavorable situations. For example, photographs have been found of individuals whose faces are easily visible getting arrested, sunbathing nude and urinating on the side of a road. | One of the largest concerns among critics of Street View is that Google made no effort to censor peoples' faces or license plate numbers, so individuals and their vehicles are easily identifiable to whoever views the images. Also, these photographs were taken without first making people aware that they were about the be photographed. Many say this is unethical because it takes away a person's choice to be viewable by millions and also has the potential to catch some people in embarrassing or unfavorable situations. For example, photographs have been found of individuals whose faces are easily visible getting arrested, sunbathing nude and urinating on the side of a road. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 52: | ||
Critics argue against this point, stating that all of these things could be seen by people simply driving down the street in their normal lives. Public photography is neither new nor illegal in the US. Also, Google has stated that there's a system in place that allows users to flag inappropriate or sensitive imagery for review to be removed. Critics point out that someone should not be engaging in embarrassing activity in public unless they're prepared to have the public see them doing it. Also, Google has said that they understand peoples' privacy concerns in some areas, such as photographing peoples' children, and say that they are putting loose restrictions on what may be flagged for review to help accommodate for those concerns. Google stated that it avoided photographing anonymous organizations such as women's refuge and drug rehabilitation centers. | Critics argue against this point, stating that all of these things could be seen by people simply driving down the street in their normal lives. Public photography is neither new nor illegal in the US. Also, Google has stated that there's a system in place that allows users to flag inappropriate or sensitive imagery for review to be removed. Critics point out that someone should not be engaging in embarrassing activity in public unless they're prepared to have the public see them doing it. Also, Google has said that they understand peoples' privacy concerns in some areas, such as photographing peoples' children, and say that they are putting loose restrictions on what may be flagged for review to help accommodate for those concerns. Google stated that it avoided photographing anonymous organizations such as women's refuge and drug rehabilitation centers. | ||
===Concerns about Stalking=== | |||
Some argue that this technology can be used to stalk individuals, however this argument most often stems from the erroneous assumption that the photos are updated in real time, which they're not. They're simply snapshots of a moment in time weeks or months prior and can't be used to ascertain a person's location at any particular moment. | |||
==Resources== | ==Resources== | ||
Latest revision as of 20:51, 2 August 2007
Mapping / Google Street View
Many are concerned about the invasiveness of satellite/aerospace imaging. Governments have complained of risks related to the availability of images of sensitive military or strategic sites, sometimes requesting obfuscation or blackouts of the compromising images. With the expansion of mapping technologies to the street level (see links below), more people have become concerned about how invasive to their privacy public photography can be. Amongst many lawful and beneficial uses, mapping technologies have also made it easier for planning crimes.
Google Mapping Technology
On the surface the Google Mapping Technology seems like a useful service, but at what cost? Just recently the White House requested that parts of the Washington D.C. area be censored for security and privacy issues. This could be said for other institutions and individuals concerned with their privacy.
Ethical implications of mapping technologies
Privacy
The houses of celebrities, government officials, and co-workers will be compromised by anyone wanting to spy or monitor for some personal gain or benefit. On the other hand, I could search and see a map of the neighborhood I used to live in when I was a kid or what route to take when traveling to another state.
Security
This is related to privacy and could be targeted to delinquent planning to steal house or business valuables. At the same time a snapshot can be used as evidence that a certain individual was trespassing or spying on someone.
Legal
Some countries, states, national parks/monuments, or key locations may have laws against taking photographs. On the other hand it would be neat to see how the NC zoo is organized and how crowded it is at times from a Google snapshot.
Aproved/Unaproved Use
Unapproved use of Google map resources and features will require and cost Google resources to submit a cease and desist request. Approved use of Google services and features will bring new sources of revenue and business opportunities.
Insecure Technology
Security exploits to the new technologies used by Google will or may negatively affect the company and any of its users. If the technologies prove useful, other companies will evaluate and adopt similar technology and development practice.
Emerging Google Map Features
The click-to-call feature can be useful at times if I forget my dentist's phone number. I can "Google Map" to it and click the building to auto dial the Dentist's phone number. The issues with these new add-on features to the Google Map services is that they will append to the already mounting ethical issues of privacy and security of a company or individual.
Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there?
This is a nice Google service feature if used with the right intent, to look up directions and routes to a company (for example). For the moment this feature has proved beneficial to the company and its users. The problem is that they did not take into consideration security and privacy issues from the beginning to assure that the rights of people or countries are supported as specified by their laws. From the point of view of competition asking for permission for every map location would have proven too costly to release. From this point of view it is understandable why the service was released this way. If anyone has a problem or conflict with the provided maps they should request they are removed from the Service like the White House did.
Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical?
Requests from censorship of public photography has the same issues (or even more) of Photojournalism. Publishing these public photos for some journalistic intent has produced some controversy. Good journalist organizations have had the time to develop some ethical standards. Other issues have not been resolved, like the abuse of celebrity privacy from the paparazzi.
As mapping imagery increases in coverage and resolution over time, should there be limits set or censorship mandated to protect the public from lawful but invasive and sometimes unwanted photography?
We would all like to thing that there would be some limits set by our respected officials and public representatives. The problem is that we have not done this censorship in similar situations as described in the previous question. Unfortunately these limits may vary from different countries and organizations that will not be effective.
Google Street View
Overview
Google recently launched a new tool called "Street View", which allowed users to view street-level images of selected major cities in the US. Although such images are legal, many claim that posting them on the internet without consent or any apparent censorship violates their privacy.
Concerns about Lack of Censorship
One of the largest concerns among critics of Street View is that Google made no effort to censor peoples' faces or license plate numbers, so individuals and their vehicles are easily identifiable to whoever views the images. Also, these photographs were taken without first making people aware that they were about the be photographed. Many say this is unethical because it takes away a person's choice to be viewable by millions and also has the potential to catch some people in embarrassing or unfavorable situations. For example, photographs have been found of individuals whose faces are easily visible getting arrested, sunbathing nude and urinating on the side of a road.
Critics argue against this point, stating that all of these things could be seen by people simply driving down the street in their normal lives. Public photography is neither new nor illegal in the US. Also, Google has stated that there's a system in place that allows users to flag inappropriate or sensitive imagery for review to be removed. Critics point out that someone should not be engaging in embarrassing activity in public unless they're prepared to have the public see them doing it. Also, Google has said that they understand peoples' privacy concerns in some areas, such as photographing peoples' children, and say that they are putting loose restrictions on what may be flagged for review to help accommodate for those concerns. Google stated that it avoided photographing anonymous organizations such as women's refuge and drug rehabilitation centers.
Concerns about Stalking
Some argue that this technology can be used to stalk individuals, however this argument most often stems from the erroneous assumption that the photos are updated in real time, which they're not. They're simply snapshots of a moment in time weeks or months prior and can't be used to ascertain a person's location at any particular moment.