Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

karp.id.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#21

Post by jforberg »

cuu508 wrote: post #18
MarkEthan wrote: post #3

The lack of quality blurring is definitely something to prioritize. As an aside, OpenStreetView makes me think of the "gargoyles" in Snow Crash. As sensors of all types (but in this instance cameras) get radically cheaper & start to permeate the physical world it's inevitable that things visible from the street will just become less private over time.

And quality blurring may be tricky to implement. On Google Street View, street name plates and road signs are often blurred, because the algorithm is not sure if they are licence plates or not, and blurs too much. For Open Street View, this would defeat the purpose of having the photos.

"Because it's hard" is not a very good reason to neglect doing something when you know it's the right thing to do.

The right thing to do would have been to avoid publishing these photos until you have the means to anonymise them properly, or to use a service like Google Vision and pay the small fee to get someone else to do it.

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#22

Post by detaro »

jMyles wrote: post #16
Symbiote wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can opt either ... or Or, we can have a compromise, since the world isn't black and white, and we needn't restrict ourselves to a binary choice. That's how the European rights work, on life, expression (speech), privacy and so on.

With most things, I agree, but I'm not sure I see any middle ground here. Can you publish a picture taken in public, even if it includes faces and license plates, or not? This does seem binary to me.

Why does that have to be binary and can not depend on the circumstances? There are conflicting interests and rights. Invoking one violates others, so a balance has to be found. A blanket yes/no is either banning something because it could violate some other right, or allowing senseless violation of some right just because there are situations where that could be justified.

Rights are weighted against each other all the time, why should e.g. freedom of press be any different in this case?

Re your elites argument, right now "normal people" are generally awarded more protections than important figures, although the latter have more resources available to try nevertheless. They'll still have those resources, and normal people still won't have them, if you remove protections.

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#23

Post by unicornporn »

Funny, me and a friend started talking about a crowd sourced alternative to Google Street View just last week. My first thought when discussing this was: how will you normalize data? How will you provide a 360 view? I guess the answer is: you probably wont.

Didn't know of this initiative, so I was happy to see people working on it. Here's the first image that popped up for me:

https://imgur.com/a/ScgOd

Lo and behold, it's upside down. :)

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#24

Post by maxerickson »

unicornporn wrote: post #23

Funny, me and a friend started talking about a crowd sourced alternative to Google Street View just last week. My first thought when discussing this was: how will you normalize data? How will you provide a 360 view? I guess the answer is: you probably wont. Didn't know of this initiative, so I was happy to see people working on it. Here's the first image that popped up for me: https://imgur.com/a/ScgOd Lo and behold,…

They fixed that bug: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12331769

Mapillary has been able to recover 3d structure in areas with high photo density:

http://blog.mapillary.com/update/2015/11/10/pointclouds.html

That's still a long way from merging the photos into a coherent view, but you quickly start to be able to 'look around'.

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#25

Post by alanwatts »

moron4hire wrote: post #12

Perhaps we could consider what is going on here to be something of a small-townification of cities. I grew up in a small town. If something was going on out from behind closed doors, everyone knew about it. And sometimes they knew even if it was behind closed doors. Prior to the current era of data ubiquity, to escape such a thing, you could find some level of anonymity in a crowd. Walking through Times Square in NYC…

>Perhaps we could consider what is going on here to be something of a small-townification of cities.

>I grew up in a small town. If something was going on out from behind closed doors, everyone knew about it.

This is a phenomenon Marshall McLuhan wrote about back in the 60's when electric media was gaining traction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_village_(term)

>In the electric age, when our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve us in the whole of mankind and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us, we necessarily participate, in depth, in the consequences of our every action. It is no longer possible to adopt the aloof and dissociated role of the literate Westerner.

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#26

Post by hx87 »

Symbiote wrote: post #9
jMyles wrote: post #8

Reading into the details of these kinds of "privacy implications" (particularly the desire to force publication delay and the force blurring of people or license plates), I'm left thinking that the "implications" are more stark for freedom than they are for privacy . Are there really privacy implications of any sort in publishing a series of photos of people and cars on a street that aren't already implicated by the…

> We can opt either ... or Or, we can have a compromise, since the world isn't black and white, and we needn't restrict ourselves to a binary choice. That's how the European rights work, on life, expression (speech), privacy and so on.

Everyone compromises--it's just that Europe tends to err on the side of privacy, whereas the US usually errs on the side of freedom. From my American point of view though, Europe seems a lot more eager to "export" its preferences abroad through legal means.

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#27

Post by jMyles »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #20
jMyles wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With most things, I agree, but I'm not sure I see any middle ground here. Can you publish a picture taken in public, even if it includes faces and license plates, or not? This does seem binary to me.

Big public projects can have policies which minimise negative externalities. You can still privately publish any photo you like, within the bounds of the law. There is lots of middle ground. "Legally you can, but morally, should you?" Time series get interesting. If it comes to actual law and courts, it's definitely context dependent. Intent matters a lot. Surf cam is more OK than "revenge cam" of ex's house. Yes tha…

> child pornography is just a time series of pictures right?

But presumably it's not the capturing of the photons that is criminal in the case of child pornography. Even if you used a fake camera, it's still illegal, right?

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#28

Post by icebraining »

hx87 wrote: post #26
Symbiote wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can opt either ... or Or, we can have a compromise, since the world isn't black and white, and we needn't restrict ourselves to a binary choice. That's how the European rights work, on life, expression (speech), privacy and so on.

Everyone compromises--it's just that Europe tends to err on the side of privacy, whereas the US usually errs on the side of freedom. From my American point of view though, Europe seems a lot more eager to "export" its preferences abroad through legal means.

Europe seems a lot more eager to "export" its preferences abroad through legal means.

What do you mean?

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#29

Post by tedunangst »

moron4hire wrote: post #12

Perhaps we could consider what is going on here to be something of a small-townification of cities. I grew up in a small town. If something was going on out from behind closed doors, everyone knew about it. And sometimes they knew even if it was behind closed doors. Prior to the current era of data ubiquity, to escape such a thing, you could find some level of anonymity in a crowd. Walking through Times Square in NYC…

> They are the same exact people online as they are on the bus.

Haven't you heard? There are criminals on the internet!

Re: Privacy Implications for OpenStreetView

#30

Post by colejohnson66 »

jMyles wrote: post #27
xyzzy123 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big public projects can have policies which minimise negative externalities. You can still privately publish any photo you like, within the bounds of the law. There is lots of middle ground. "Legally you can, but morally, should you?" Time series get interesting. If it comes to actual law and courts, it's definitely context dependent. Intent matters a lot. Surf cam is more OK than "revenge cam" of ex's house. Yes tha…

> child pornography is just a time series of pictures right? But presumably it's not the capturing of the photons that is criminal in the case of child pornography. Even if you used a fake camera, it's still illegal, right?

I'd assume that's just child exploitation/molestation, not pornography. But that's just me.
Post reply on HN