Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mainframed 1658 days ago
Google street view is not illegal. People just have the right to request that Google blurs their house. And because so many people requested it in Germany, Google said it's too much effort and disabled it completely. They still drive through Germany and collect images to improve their navigation services.

Also, I don't understand the discussion: Why is limiting free speech contradicting privacy efforts? Allowing people to prevent that their house being displayed on the internet is completely independent of stopping people writing racist slurs on the internet.

In Germany it's not about some extremist scalar ideology of freedom or control. You have basic rights and in daily life the rights of people collide.

In the case of Google Street view, there is the right of Google to choose their work (Art. 12 GG) vs. the right for privacy (derived from Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG) of people. Courts then have to follow a defined procedure to weigh those rights against each other. Apparently, it was ruled that the additional effort of blurring does not hinder Google's right to follow its occupation.

In the case of NetzDG (the law which enforces big social platform to delete criminal posts, such as racial slurs, which you probably refer to), you have the right of free speech of the poster (Art. 5 GG) and the right of human dignity of the guy who receives human dignity. Additionally, Art. 5 GG defines boundaries for free speech:

"These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. (Art. 5 Abs. 2 GG)."

I learned how the constitution works in detail in uni, and I think it's beautiful. To me, this is a recipe to have a healthy democratic society. And a democratic society has to be able to defend itself against anti-democratic, racists. Otherwise, it'll just collapse sooner or later.

1 comments

> Apparently, it was ruled that the additional effort of blurring does not hinder Google's right to follow its occupation.

As I recall there was no legal obligation from Google to blur houses. They did so to calm this hot-button political topic.

At least back then there was the Panoramafreiheit which basically allowed you to take pictures in any public area without aids(e.g. a ladder or stick). For this reason they had to lower the height of the cameras for Germany to fall under this clause I think. I also think the legal situation changes quite a bit since this was last broadly discussed.

Google knew that what they might be able to claim had a very shaky legal foundation, not even taking the public backlash into account. But there is a big difference between taking a picture and taking billions of pictures, analyzing them, and putting them into a publicly accessible database. German courts are not at all dogmatic in the way they interpret the law, because a law written long back might need to be reinterpreted today in the light of new technologies or societal developments.