[7] Google Street View blurs parts of images containing car number plates and human faces in order to protect privacy and anonymity.
One day after Google Street View cars started taking pictures, a lawyer from La Plata tried to stop them in his city[9] but on October 4, 2013, a justice dismissed his complaint.
"What worries me more than any loss of privacy is the prospect of presenting to the world a highly unflattering impression of Canadian cities.
For Google to record its images of the city at this most visually unappealing time of year is like photographing a beautiful woman who has just awakened from a six-month coma," he wrote.
"While it is easy to imagine that many whose property appears on Google's virtual maps resent the privacy implications, it is hard to believe that any – other than the most exquisitely sensitive – would suffer shame or humiliation," Judge Hay ruled.
[16] Since then the decision was reversed in part and on December 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Bissoon ruled that Google is an intentional trespasser[17] and the company was ordered to pay one US dollar to the plaintiffs.
[failed verification] In 2010, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)[19] stating that Google's admitted downloading of private Wi-Fi data[20] constituted a violation of The US Wiretap Act and The Federal Communications Act.
[21] Documents subsequently obtained by EPIC under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) indicated, despite a request from Congress,[22] that the FTC did not examine Google's data from private wireless networks before dropping the case.
[28] Google officials and leaders from BJP, the ruling party in Karnataka, organized a meeting on July 19, 2011, to continue Street View in Bangalore.
As such , a few places like Rameshwaram don’t have street view .The Google officials, however, failed to convince the leaders that they would not violate any privacy laws.
[citation needed] In Japan, Google Street View started in August 2008 and was made available for ten Japanese Prefectures in February 2009.
The university's data protection officer suggested not allowing Google to shoot the public roads of the campus in the near future unless the concerns have been addressed.
[36] However, on May 4, 2011, Google announced that they planned to begin production again[37] and on July 27, 2011, the Street View imagery for Australian towns and cities was updated.
The office described Google's program as taking pictures "beyond the extent of the ordinary sight from a street", and that it "disproportionately invade citizens' privacy."
[44] According to a Danish media lawyer, Oluf Jørgensen, Google's practice of photographing people on private property is illegal.
"[50] However, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said that people should not get "hysterical" about the issue and called for "caution in introducing blanket rules allowing objections.
Google had been stopped from gathering images in Greek cities for its Street View service until it provided further guarantees about privacy.
In May 2012 the Lithuanian State Data Protection Inspectorate (SDPI) refused permission for the Google Street View project to operate in Lithuania.
However, from 2010 onwards, Google cars appeared on the Polish streets with the consent of state authorities and in consultation with the Ministry of Sport and Tourism.
In 2011 GIODO began monitoring service Street View and published the report which included non-binding demand that Google should clearly communicate and warn when it's going to take pictures in a certain area at a certain time.
[60] In November 2009, Switzerland's Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner Hanspeter Thür announced that his agency would be suing Google because in Street View "numerous faces and vehicle number plates are not made sufficiently unrecognizable from the point of view of data protection".
[65] Soon after the launch human rights watchdog Privacy International sent a formal complaint about the service to the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which cited more than 200 reports from members of the public who were identifiable on Street View images.
Privacy International director Simon Davies said that the organization had filed the complaint due to the "clear embarrassment and damage" Street View had caused to many Britons.
He said that Street View fell short of the assurances given by Google to the ICO in July 2008 that had enabled its launch, namely that privacy would be protected by blurring faces and vehicle licence plates, and asked for the system to be "switched off" while an investigation was completed.
[67] On April 23, 2009, the Information Commissioner ruled that although Google Street View carries a small risk of privacy invasion it should not be stopped.