CSC 379:Week 4, Group 5: Difference between revisions

From Expertiza_Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 22: Line 22:
==Google Street View==
==Google Street View==


Ethical implications of mapping technologies
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.


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.


Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there? 
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.


 
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.
Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical?  When? 
 
 
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?




Line 38: Line 35:
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html Google Zooms In Too Close for Some (New York Times)]  
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html Google Zooms In Too Close for Some (New York Times)]  
* [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/05/google_street_view_a.html Public Opinion on Google Street View (Boing Boing)]
* [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/05/google_street_view_a.html Public Opinion on Google Street View (Boing Boing)]
* [http://www.mcwetboy.net/maproom/2007/06/google_street_v.php Privacy Concerns Raised about Google Street View (Maproom)]
* [http://mashable.com/2007/05/31/top-15-google-street-view-sightings/ A Collection of Notable Sightings found with Google Street View (Mashable)]

Revision as of 23:25, 26 July 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

Ethical implications of mapping technologies

Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there?

Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical? When?

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?

Emerging Google Map Features


Google Street View

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.

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.

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

Relevant External Links: