On a related but rather more serious note,

the press release points out that the cars are now only collecting photos and 3D imagery. This follows the revelation in May that the cars had been caught recording WiFi data and the press release points to an update about WiFi data collection which in turn apologizes for a previous incorrect blog post:

In that blog post, and in a technical note sent to data protection authorities the same day, we said that while Google did collect publicly broadcast SSID information (the WiFi network name) and MAC addresses (the unique number given to a device like a WiFi router) using Street View cars, we did not collect payload data (information sent over the network). But it’s now clear that we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open (i.e. non-password-protected) WiFi networks, even though we never used that data in any Google products.

The mistake looks genuine and I believe that Google really did have no intention of picking up such tiny fragments of data (their equipment switched channel five times a second) mainly because the company already processes around 24 petabytes of data a day (that’s 24 thousand terabytes) which is more than enough to keep the nosiest nosey parker busy. More to the point, it would probably already have had access to the full “payload” through its existing technologies.

However it’s clear that lessons need to be learned. According to Google’s update, the main lesson learned, apart from removing the WiFi data collection equipment from its fleet, seems to be

This incident highlights just how publicly accessible open, non-password-protected WiFi networks are today.

which is certainly true, though the ensuing plug for its encrypted Gmail is a bit rich in the circumstances.

What’s really striking is that Google seems to think that the only issue is the payload issue. In particular it makes no reference to the fact that end users might be uncomfortable about the collection of the SSID and MAC info in the first place (I always feel slightly guilty seeing neighbours’ network names knowing that most assumed they would be private), nor to the fact that the cars everyone assumed were designed to collect photos were quietly being used to collect other data entirely.

This is not a black-and-white issue and I’m not opposed to Google’s voracious data gathering on principle. For me it largely comes down to cost/benefit so that for example, despite the personal embarrassment of my uncut hedge, on balance I’d say that Google Maps/Street View is a mind-boggling achievement and a fantastic gift to mankind. I can also see that having an accurate map of open networks could be a real boon – but it can’t be done on the sly.

Google needs to realise that privacy isn’t just a legal issue, but a question of trust. If I catch a neighbour secretly peering in my window I might not call the police, but I will certainly bear it in mind in future dealings. If their main response is to say that they hadn’t planned on keeping all the photos, that really isn’t very reassuring.

Google, it appears, will take down any image – without any checks or balances – if you appear to have a legitimate complaint. In my case, I argued the picture of my pretend family and I standing outside our house was a “privacy concern”. Google asked for no proof of identity, other than a contact email address (which was a generic Gmail account, with no surname to cross-reference against the address). On that flimsiest of pretext, we’ve been able to black out part of a Kensington street.

We will, of course, ask Google’s press office to reinstate our deleted image. But our little experiment highlights how effortless it is to vandalise the service. How easy would it be, for example, to remove a photo of a rival business from the high street, by claiming you’ve been caught walking past?  

Google says it has measures in place to deal with vandalism. “While we trust the vast majority of our users not to abuse the removals system inevitably a small number may be determined to do so,” a spokesperson told PC Pro. ”We have controls in place to deal with spam and illegitimate requests and we believe that in the majority of cases irregular activity will be picked up. “

Our fake takedown has also highlighted another problem – it didn’t really work. This is the image we asked to be removed:

Sure enough, there’s now a black hole when you attempt to view the address from Street View. But when you move slightly further down the street and use the zoom function, you can still see the family standing outside the house:

The different pose suggests the family were caught on camera twice by the cameras as the Google van moved down the street, and while the first image has been removed, the second one still remains in the database. So the takedown failed to protect our fake family’s privacy. Indeed, it’s arguably easier to identify the family in the second photo than it is in the first. 

It seems Google has more than a few kinks to sort out before Street View will appease the privacy lobby.