In the City Where Nobody Cares, by unidentified photographer, 1910, National Museum of American History, Behring Center, Archives Center.
A couple of years ago, as soon as Google’s Street View application was introduced, it generated worldwide controversy. Ground-level photographic images, shot from cameras mounted on cars were, critics complained, a violation of privacy. Some Street View pictures collected in 2007 by Wired.com, for example, showed incidents and events that some of the people depicted, I’m guessing, would rather not be recorded or seen.
By 2008, after people in cities around the world (where most of the pictures are made) kept complaining, Google introduced face-blurring technology, to respond to growing public concern and to avoid running afoul of privacy rights laws on the books in various countries and locales. Case closed. Sort of.
Public Transit Areas, 1st and Pine Ave., from the Long Beach Documentary Survey Project, by Anthony Hernandez, c. 1975, American Art Museum and its Renwick Gallery.
In mid-June, according to a recent CBS.com news story, Dutch police arrested twin brothers who, last September, knocked a 14-year-old boy off his bike in Groningen, then took his cell phone and a couple of hundred bucks from him, too (A lot of money for a kid to be carrying, right?). The thieves got away, but this past March, as the victim was looking at images on Google Street Views he came across a photograph of him and his assailants taken only moments before they accosted him. Because all faces in the image were blurred, the local police contacted Google, and an unblurred version of the image was made available to them, the first instance of Google being used to solve a crime in the Netherlands. A local detective immediately recognized one of the two assailants (I guess they’re fraternal twins . . .) and prosecutors are deciding whether to press charges.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Very interesting, Marvin! Just last week it was reported that Google has agreed to “erase the raw footage of faces, house numbers, license plates and individuals in Germany who have told authorities they do not want their information used in the service.” Maybe would-be criminals will start to request that their information be erased??
Well, that’ll be interesting. If Google means that parts of pictures will be eddited or fuzzed out (much as they are in videos shot for reality TV shows, for those of you who watch) what’s left may end up looking bizarre and a touch Stalin-esque. What’s interesting about the Google Street View controversy (and other cases, too, where people are debating public/private issues in realtionship to photographs made in public)is how expectations of privacy and cultural values around that issue differ from one country or locale to the next. A couple of weeks back, I wrote a blog entry about red-light cameras, and now their installation,use, and legality are being argued in a growing number of cities and courtrooms across the United States. For those who believe that privacy is over-rated, people who are upset probably seem quaint and to be behaving like fearful Luddites. For those suspicious of the prying eyes, cameras and scanners of others, all of this is just the tip of the iceberg.
There have been several similar cases in the UK as google has only recently undertaken it’s streetview. Several men have been caught leaving venues that, shall we say politely, they really shouldn’t have been visiting. One man was caught leaving his misstresses house but the best tale is the village that flatly refused access to the google van so that they couldn’t take any images of the entire village. The moral of the story is – An Englishman’s home is his castle!
It’s interesting how and where people are sensitive about being surveilled and photographed. From what I’ve read, London’s got more sureveilance cameras than other major metropolises, and I know, from living in New York that most city-dweller’s expectations of privacy are “factory-set” for a pretty high threshhold for being watched or watching. But I love the fact that the people in the village Derby mentioned revolted against the roving camera’s eye. Does anyone else out there know of other instances when people have banded together to prevent photographs from being taken?
The village in question is Broughton, in the commuter belt and very posh, they weren’t happy to see the presence of a car with cameras at all! It is one of those places where you have to recieve permission to breath. The UK, as Marvin correctly states is just covered with cameras, if you commit a crime in any main street or shopping centre, you will be on camera. To be honest, they aren’t viewed in any negative sense because of the security offered and the vast majority of the UK is extremely safe. The main problem is that they don’t put the cameras in the unsafe areas, probably because they will last about 5 minutes before being stolen!
This story is even better, cameras were placed in classrooms and the kids revolted. Personally, I think that this is a great idea, kids these days…….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/22/children-classroom-cctv
Last week, I read about new fabrics under development that have optical receptors woven into them. So now, in addition to emitting or reflecting light, some fabrics will be able to collect light. Hypothetically, that collected light and the data extracted from it could be translated into photographic imagery. It’s hard now to keep track (or care) about all of the recognizeable cameras around us, but this news from the photo/textile world suggests that some public/private ramifications that will be interesting to consider and live with are just down the road.
Marvin, that reminds me of the technology behind the vanishing cloak used in the Harry Potter films. The technology isn’t that far from the reality of actually being able to vanish although I’m not sure how this works. I can’t actually begin to understand the mechanics behind this but it would throw up some interesting situations. Google will no longer be able to photograph you being one although I guess it could be used for far more interesting things! A link to the article is below:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_17_170/ai_n16864879/
Recent work in cloaking is getting interesting. An ex-graduate student of mine has been doing some research on the project, and here’s a link she sent a little while ago that descirbes the work they’re doing at Duke University in a little more detail:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090115164530.htm
The early film star, Greta Garbo who famously/supposedly said “I want to be alone,”
when she tried to withdraw from celebrity’s glare, was clearly ahead of the curve. In a visual culture that, at least most of the time, encouages and rewards visibility, think of the long list of things that people/business/institutions/governments would rather not be seen.
According to a recent report that I have read there are over 8000 council CCTV cameras alone (never mind personal and business cameras – and Google Street view) watching my ever move in London! Though, as someone who was rather too close to one of the 7/7 bombs in London, I’d really rather put up with them!
One article today did rub me up the wrong way though as a photogapher trying to get parked in London – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/6968607/Motorists-hit-with-ghost-tickets.html
Another thing I could really do without though is the recent CCTV footage of fatal stabbings in London that the media seem to think I need to see ….
Thanks for the feedback and link. What I’m seeing as I scan online news reports is that controversy is building exponentially across the US over use of what motorists are starting to call “revenue cameras” instead of red-light- or speed-cameras. It will be interesting to see what impact the recent talk about beefing up airport screening, following the recent and thwarted Christmas airline bombing attempt, will have on people’s attitudes regarding how, when, and where it’s OK to be watched and pictured.