Privacy watchdog airs Google Street View concerns

The Information Commissioner's Office has said it has concerns about Google's Street View and thinks the company could be breaching data-protection law.

The Google service, which was first made available to a European audience last Thursday, shows 360° views of streets as a part of the Google Maps application. The service has been available for over a year in the US, but now takes in this year's Tour de France route. Street View is likely to be introduced to the UK as well.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) told ZDNet.co.uk on Monday that it will be in touch with Google over concerns that people will be too easily recognisable, especially as the face-blurring technology it uses to protect people's identity is not yet 100 percent accurate.

"We will be contacting Google about visibility, and about the contactability of the people in the photos," said an ICO spokesperson. "We will be asking Google whether it will be following its US model [where faces are blurred and those pictured can have themselves removed]. There could be privacy concerns if the people are identifiable, because the images are available to anyone who can log onto the internet. We will be looking at what [laws and regulations] Google could be breaking before speaking to them."

The ICO was also waiting to hear from Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, over his concerns that Google's face-blurring technology did not blur everyone's faces on Street View.

Davies told ZDNet.co.uk on Tuesday that Privacy International had been in touch with Google to request "full disclosure of the technology specifications for the promised face and number-plate blurring system". However, according to Davies, the search giant has refused to divulge details of the technology on proprietorial grounds. In a letter seen by ZDNet.co.uk, Davies lambasted Google for its refusal to give these details.

"The reason we asked for technical specs for Street View face blurring (and hopefully more quantifiable information) was to ensure that everyone could be assured that the system worked to a reasonable expectation, and that there would not be circumstances, perhaps unforeseen, that might lead to exposure," Davies wrote to Google. "We do understand your concerns about proprietary aspects. Nevertheless, this should not prevent publication of a more expansive overview of the system and the details of any trials that it has undergone."

Davies wrote that Google was in danger of losing public trust over its privacy record, which included agreeing to hand over YouTube user details to Viacom. "If you continue to conduct your affairs in secret the remaining trust in your company will disintegrate," he wrote.

The letter from Privacy International was in response to a letter from Google's senior privacy counsel, Jane Horvath, in which she outlined Google's position on its face-blurring technology.

"As with all such systems operating at this scale our blurring technology is not perfect — we occasionally miss a face or licence plate, for example, if they are partially covered, or at a difficult angle," Horvath wrote to Davies. "However, we tested the technology thoroughly before launch and I am confident that it finds and blurs the vast majority of identifiable faces and licence plates. For the few that we miss, the tools within the product make it easy for users to report a face or licence plate for extra blurring. As always, users can still ask for their image to be removed from the product entirely."