The privacy issues related to the public availability of personal data combined with a person’s location has long been a debate and issue within the geospatial industry. Jerry Dobson coined the term “geoslavery” to describe the ability to track an individual with GPS and use geofencing to curtail their movement. There have also been ongoing complaints from governments about the availability of imagery in geoexploration platforms, fearing the imagery poses a security threat.
Google and others generally comply to government complaints by reducing the resolution of images in sensitive areas. But full-resolution imagery is available commercially from a few U.S.-based companies, and a growing number of international entities, so that concern is rapidly becoming outdated since the imagery is so widely available.
Google’s Street View imagery has raised an uproar due to the resolution of the imagery that allows for the identification of people or car license plates. Hundred of individuals have scoured the imagery for interesting and incriminating photos. And Canada’s privacy commissioner sent a note to Google stating that she felt the imagery would not comply with Canada’s federal privacy legislation. (This even though a Canadian company, Immersive Media, was responsible for the data collection.)
The imagery hasn’t yet been collected in Canada, so that’s not a real issue to date, but it does point to the possibility of legislation that could curtail the realism and frequency of data that are available in these platforms. Fortunately, there’s a technology fix for everything as Google has stated that they’ll be able to blur faces and license plates, which should eliminate the concern. I’m sure there’s a possibility for unpopulated models at some point, with some creative photo stitching.
Back in 2004, the libertarian magazine Reason created a customized cover for each of its subscribers with an aerial photo of their neighborhood and their house circled. The issue also included customized ads that compiled a number of personal details gleaned from public data. The stunt was intended to show our reliability on databases and how they are both beneficial and invasive.
As Internet companies become increasingly important and far reaching — with search, applications and services — the amount of data they compile on us could become worrisome. Google’s purchase of Double Click is an illustration of just such a possible conflict. Double Click’s business involves the creation of personal profiles, potentially leading to personally identifiable information that could be exploited alongside location information.
The geoexploration platform is not a huge privacy worry in and of itself. It’s the combination of the platform with other data that could become dangerous.
Read Jeff Thurston’s take on the same subject here.
{ 1 trackback }