At least photography is OK if one is a large company, as
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/02/street_view_spycar/>
reveals. "Google's Street View spycar clocked in London".

There have been no reports of jobsworths harassing the operators of
these cars. As the comments say, perhaps photographers should wear a
Google t-shirt when photographing and tell any jobsworth that they
are filling in details missed by the cars.




-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:nh1p64lje226277uqmec9323flc35a9194@4ax.com...
> At least photography is OK if one is a large company, as
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/02/street_view_spycar/>
> reveals. "Google's Street View spycar clocked in London".
>
> There have been no reports of jobsworths harassing the operators of
> these cars. As the comments say, perhaps photographers should wear a
> Google t-shirt when photographing and tell any jobsworth that they
> are filling in details missed by the cars.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>  David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

I hope they know the height of their gizmo, or the next thing we'll hear is 
that has given a bridge a bash!

MaxB

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:59:54 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:

>At least photography is OK if one is a large company, as
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/02/street_view_spycar/>
>reveals. "Google's Street View spycar clocked in London".

I saw that thing the other day when I stepped off a bus near my home.

>There have been no reports of jobsworths harassing the operators of
>these cars. As the comments say, perhaps photographers should wear a
>Google t-shirt when photographing and tell any jobsworth that they
>are filling in details missed by the cars.

Not to worry though - Google have to provide Viacom with the IP address
and usage history of everyone who has ever used You Tube. Goodness knows
what on earth Viacom are going to do with the information.  Isn't
technology wonderful?
-- 
Paul C

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:31:22 +0100 someone who may be Paul Corfield
 wrote this:-

>Not to worry though - Google have to provide Viacom with the IP address
>and usage history of everyone who has ever used You Tube. Goodness knows
>what on earth Viacom are going to do with the information.  Isn't
>technology wonderful?

Indeed. However, as important a question is what Google have been
doing retaining this information. Were they an upstanding company
they would have purged this information in line with good practice.

There is also the question of what an external IP address reveals. I
imagine the average number of computers on one external IP address
is something like five these days, perhaps more. Then there are the
people who use the computers. ISTM that not only did the court make
a huge mistake in asking for this, but those who get it will be
unable make anything useful out of it.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:nh1p64lje226277uqmec9323flc35a9194@4ax.com...
> At least photography is OK if one is a large company, as
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/02/street_view_spycar/>
> reveals. "Google's Street View spycar clocked in London".
>

or maybe not OK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488524.stm

-- 
Peter

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:34:50 +0100 someone who may be "Peter
Goodland"  wrote this:-

>> At least photography is OK if one is a large company, as
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/02/street_view_spycar/>
>> reveals. "Google's Street View spycar clocked in London".
>>
>
>or maybe not OK
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488524.stm

I doubt if the Information Commissioner will do anything. They have
a very poor record.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In message 
          "Peter Goodland"  wrote:

> 
> "David Hansen"  wrote in message 
> news:nh1p64lje226277uqmec9323flc35a9194@4ax.com...
> > At least photography is OK if one is a large company, as
> > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/02/street_view_spycar/>
> > reveals. "Google's Street View spycar clocked in London".
> >
> 
> or maybe not OK
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488524.stm
> 

Mr Davies is wrong.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

Graeme Wall wrote:
> In message 
>           "Peter Goodland"  wrote:
> 
>> "David Hansen"  wrote in message 
>> news:nh1p64lje226277uqmec9323flc35a9194@4ax.com...
>>> At least photography is OK if one is a large company, as
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/02/street_view_spycar/>
>>> reveals. "Google's Street View spycar clocked in London".
>>>
>> or maybe not OK
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488524.stm
>>
> 
> Mr Davies is wrong.
> 

He is so wrong, he could be a certain uk.railway poster :)


-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

In message , at 09:20:42 on 
Fri, 4 Jul 2008, David Hansen  
remarked:
>There is also the question of what an external IP address reveals. I
>imagine the average number of computers on one external IP address
>is something like five these days, perhaps more. Then there are the
>people who use the computers. ISTM that not only did the court make
>a huge mistake in asking for this, but those who get it will be
>unable make anything useful out of it.

In the past these rightsholders have used the IP address to identify the 
household, and that's all they need in order to issue a "cease and 
desist" letter, with the subscriber being made responsible for any 
further infringements - after all it's his subscription that's being 
[mis]used.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:39:26 on 
Fri, 4 Jul 2008, David Hansen  
remarked:
>>or maybe not OK
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488524.stm
>
>I doubt if the Information Commissioner will do anything.

Current advice of theirs would indicate that they don't think photos 
like this are personal data. To be personal data then *Google* (not 
people using Google) have to be able to identify individuals from the 
photos (also using any other information they might have). Which is 
quite unlikely, really.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:18:01 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 10:39:26 on 
>Fri, 4 Jul 2008, David Hansen  
>remarked:
>>>or maybe not OK
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488524.stm
>>
>>I doubt if the Information Commissioner will do anything.
>
>Current advice of theirs would indicate that they don't think photos 
>like this are personal data. To be personal data then *Google* (not 
>people using Google) have to be able to identify individuals from the 
>photos (also using any other information they might have). Which is 
>quite unlikely, really.

A certain singer-songwriter recently recounted a tale:

inputting his postcode to Google Earth, he found a link to an image of
himself getting into his car outside his house.

He wrote a song about it (something along the lines of "Who's watching
the ones who're watching me?......").

In message , at 19:09:52 on 
Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Mike Roebuck  remarked:
>>Current advice of theirs would indicate that they don't think photos
>>like this are personal data. To be personal data then *Google* (not
>>people using Google) have to be able to identify individuals from the
>>photos (also using any other information they might have). Which is
>>quite unlikely, really.
>
>A certain singer-songwriter recently recounted a tale:
>
>inputting his postcode to Google Earth, he found a link to an image of
>himself getting into his car outside his house.

But the question here would be: could Google identify an individual in 
those circumstances?

Google Earth (and in this case with the Panoramio addon, I suspect) is 
another large set of photos superimposed upon a map. I don't recall 
people getting in a lather about the Data Protection aspects.

I try to follow the Panoramio rules that they are supposed to be 
pictures of places, not people or things. The only one I have with 
anything like UK-based people in is this one, and that's also a railway 
topic:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6560909

On the other hand this American one has definitely got some recognisable 
people:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6618074
-- 
Roland Perry