[OldWelshGuy]

Originally Posted by boxby

I think the recent changes re Trademarks & Keywords show that googles does not appear to have a great deal of consideration for UK or EU law.

Yep, they have gone from 'do no evil' to Do Know evil'

[PI Guy]

which part of the HRA are they breaching?

[OldWelshGuy]

Originally Posted by PI Guy

which part of the HRA are they breaching?

Article 8 . There is precedent set from a case in 1995 where a guy tried to kill himself and the newspapers published photographs. He sued and won.

Besides European data protection and privacy laws, Google street view must face the rules established by the European Convention on Human Rights. Public photographs of identifiable individuals taken in public streets which constitute a "disproportionate and unjustified interference" with an individual's privacy life violate Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a ruling by the European Court on Human Rights in a 1995 case. An individual was photographed when trying to commit suicide in a public street. The photos were widely distributed by the media. The individual survived and the European Court on Human Rights held that the photos were a "disproportionate and unjustified interference" in plaintiff's life. It is worth noting that the Convention on Human Rights applies to government actions rather than private actions. Yet according to some precedents, individuals file actions under the Data Protection Act and the court may consider the individuals' human rights when deciding the case.

Google has suggested they would blur the faces of people, but it is not known if this would be acceptable yet.

http://www.cdt.org/privacy/eudirecti...irective_.html

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

[An Oasis]

Originally Posted by OldWelshGuy

Bloody Google, it is making a shopping list for lazy burglars. They will be able to source and case their next target online.

Yup and I have to say that is the one thing that worries us most the cost in additional security to us is going to be vast, in fact, so vast that it could put us out of business if we stay put, so we'll relocate.

I don't mind information being available if I choose it to be available but not to have the choice is the issue. Apart from that which sad ****er wants to know the intimate details of any area? Let's face it if you have the time to explore a bllody high street you are probably unemployed, and if I were in government I'd force the unemployed to work to get their benefits.

[PI Guy]

How can it intrude on privacy when they are in public?

[Alvin]

Originally Posted by PI Guy

How can it intrude on privacy when they are in public?

I think there may be a slight difference in practical application to having a dozen people watching one and.

1.3 billion .?

Alvin

[OldWelshGuy]

Originally Posted by PI Guy

How can it intrude on privacy when they are in public?

As my neighbour who is regularly in the house of Lords in a legal capacity told me. 'The law has nothing to do with fact, it is all about that which can be proved, or has already been proved'. In this case PI, I refer you to the trial judge who set precedent in 1995

[PI Guy]

it's interesting idea but i feel that its a storm in a tea cup. any data will be massively out of date by the time published and its clearly not private simply by the fact that its public

[OldWelshGuy]

Originally Posted by PI Guy

it's interesting idea but i feel that its a storm in a tea cup. any data will be massively out of date by the time published and its clearly not private simply by the fact that its public

Sorry but the courts say you are wrong. That guy tried to commitsuicide, someone took pictures, a paper published them, and the highest court in Europe stated that using images of someone without their permission for commercial gain is illegal. End of argument really as precedent has already been set.

Doesn't matter what you or I think, or might interpret 'private', the precedent has been enscribed into the statute

[PI Guy]

Originally Posted by OldWelshGuy

the precedent has been enscribed into the statute

no i got that...doesn't mean they're right though...my opinion won't change on this one cause it goes against common sense IMHO