Access member only content, take part in discussions with comments on blogs, news and reviews and receive all the latest security industry news directly to your inbox. Join now for free.
A confirmation email has been sent to your email address - SUPPLIED EMAIL HERE. Please click on the link in the email to verify your email address. You need to verify your email before you can start posting.
If you do not receive your confirmation email within the next few minutes, it may be because the email has been captured by a junk mail filter. Please ensure you add the domain @scmagazine.com.au to your white-listed senders.
The ICO claimed that the service was akin to members of the public being captured on television news camera or football crowds in the background of televised matches.
David Evans, the ICO's senior data protection practice manager, claimed that it was not in the public interest to change the way the service worked.
Evans said: “In the same way, there is no law against anyone taking pictures of people in the street as long as the person using the camera is not harassing people. Google Street View does not contravene the Data Protection Act and, in many cases, it is not in the public interest to turn the digital clock back.
"In a world where many people Tweet, Facebook and blog, it is important to take a commonsense approach towards Street View and the relatively limited privacy intrusion it may cause."
Privacy International claimed that Street View breached the privacy of people accidentally caught on camera by Google's photo cars.
Evans did however claim that Google should routinely blur images of people's faces and car number plates, and welcomed Google's quick responses to requests from people to have particular images deleted. See original article on scmagazineuk.com
To begin commenting right away, you can log in below or register an account if you don't yet have one. Please read our guidelines on commenting. Offending posts will be removed and your access may be suspended. Abusive or obscene language will not be tolerated. The comments below do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of SC Magazine, Haymarket Media or its employees.