by Hermilia C. Banayat-Nas
(14th entry)
Last year, Google Maps installed street view cameras by strapping video cameras on cars. The images captured by the cameras are uploaded to Google Maps on real time and stored for easier viewing.
Early this week, a Canadian was apprehended for illegally cutting trees on her property. The logging was caught on camera by one of those Google street view cameras. The image on the left, shows an image captured by one of those cameras, too. If the camera was able to capture the scene moments before the collision it is possible to know the factual circumstances of the tragic accident. Eventually, the person who caused the collision (which driver is liable?) may be easily identified without long court proceedings.
There is an implication, maybe brought about by Google's motto--"Don't be evil."--that these street view cameras might be doing the police's job of ensuring peace and keeping people safe. For example, the illegal logger in Canada would never have been identified if not for the cameras.
Is this a good thing? I think not.
The sides of the issue can be seen identified thus: (1) accused who have rights, (2) policemen who are lazy and (3) civilians like Google. Yes, there are at least three sides. We know from different cases (People vs. Marty, for one) that the prohibition of illegal searched evidence do not apply to private individuals. If we allow Google to police the streets, ALL the images it captures, despite being violative of the rights of the accused or privacy rights, are admissible in evidence.
I think that Google street view cameras should be limited to Google Maps. We have enough policemen, thank you.
Related story at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/category/surveillance/
1 comment:
i disagree, there are not enough policemen especially in the philippines ;). however, the point raised regarding surveillance made by google through googlecars - that is a bit all-seeing-eyeish. most people value privacy and anything that would violate that must have a great and compelling state interest. but is this compelling enough for the state to tip the balance of scales in favor of having no privacy?
Post a Comment