Thür demanded measures from Google in September 2009to improve the protection of privacy in Street View. Because the majority of Google refused to implement the proposals, the Federal Administrative Court had to rule on the matter following a complaint by the FDPIC. The judges in Bern have now come to the conclusion that Google must comply with almost all of Thür's demands. At the heart of this is Google's obligation to manually make the faces of people and vehicle license plates completely unrecognizable. According to the FDPIC, only around 98 percent of all faces are currently blurred automatically.

Complete anonymity must be established in the area of sensitive facilities, such as women's shelters, prisons, schools, courts, social authorities and hospitals. In addition to the face, Google must also remove other individual characteristics such as skin color or clothing. Google must also provide information in local newspapers about planned recording trips and the uploading of images online instead of just on the Google Maps homepage, as was previously the case. According to the court, it is also inadmissible to view courtyards and gardens that would not be visible to "normal passers-by".

The decision can still be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne. According to the current ruling, every person has the right to their own image. This means that, in principle, no one may be depicted without their consent. This also applies to images in which people only appear as an accessory, as on Street View.

Additional expense to cope with

This right to one's own image must take precedence over the economic interests of Google as well as those of the users. Google is currently accepting the violation of personal rights for the sake of its success. This could be avoided with post-processing, whereby the additional costs obviously do not jeopardize Google's existence. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the additional costs could be passed on to the users of Google Street View. Finally, it should not be forgotten that this is not about a ban on Google Street View.

According to the court, Google only does not have to fulfill one of Thür's demands. It concerns recordings made from private roads. Thür wanted such recordings to be posted online only with the consent of the authorized parties. Google countered the data protection officer's demands at the court hearing at the end of February by arguing that nobody was really interested in the few faces that were still visible. Thür's demand was disproportionate.

Moreover, it is not clear why Google should be banned from doing what others are allowed to do on the internet and in the media without further ado. There is great public and private interest in Street View. Ultimately, the data protection officer's complaint was made for purely political reasons. (SDA)  

Google and data protectionists argue before federal administrative court