Other concerns raised have included security risks. After a number of burglaries in the area, local villagers prevented a Street View car from filming in the village of Broughton in Buckinghamshire (UK), explaining: “If our houses are plastered all over Google, it’s an invitation for more criminals to strike.” Not everyone, however, perceives Street View in the same way. For instance, while the Broughton incident denied the Google car access to the village, private individuals who supported the mapping concept took their own photographs of the area and independently posted them online.

In response to challenges, Google defend their right to implement the mapping service and have taken steps to re-assure the general public about Street View. In particular, Google provide a privacy web page that states that the service “contains imagery that is no different from what you might see driving or walking down the street.”, images are “not real-time”, faces and license plates are automatically “blurred”, and people can request the removal of an image.

By recognizing the importance of privacy factors, Google appears to understand that modern changes in the way maps can be developed and distributed involves social as well as technical consideration. For example, care must be taken to consider both users and non-users of the service, as one man’s map view may be another man’s private residence.

In order to avoid being seen as some kind of intrusive “Big Brother” figure, those who operate this kind of service must also be sensitive to different cultures and existing expectations (on a legal as well as social level).

Providing the mapping service for free conveys a message of openness, and may act as an incentive to encourage wider use – and acceptance – of the service. However, this approach also gives the supplier full control over the data, with no direct obligation to the user – and a currently hazy obligation to those who may appear in the images.

Projecting a responsible corporate image, which acknowledges the need to manipulate photographs in order to respect privacy, protect people, or maintain security can imply a degree of accountability or social conscience. However, this approach may also raise more questions about who makes those decisions and doubts over the recognition of individual civil liberties.

Sharing typical street images on a global scale can educate and inform in a manner not previously possible. Whether planning (or promoting) trips to a big city, looking up friends and relatives, or viewing areas for relocation, the Street View images can provide a valuable and powerful service at the touch of a button. However, those living in smaller towns and villages, rather than major cities, are perhaps less accustomed to such intimate focus and may consider the images more of an intrusion than a benefit. Personal concerns may include the height of cameras, with the potential to see Paparazzi-like into private, fenced gardens or through residential windows.

Expanding the service coverage can potentially better support the needs of a broader audience and lead to integration into standard internet norms. However, as images are taken from more places around the world (and those images begin to include more smaller towns and villages), there is a danger of encountering more reluctance to welcome strangers whose sole intention is to expose an area that may wish to maintain a low cultural, spiritual or social profile.

A company like Google has the advantage of having a well-known and generally well-liked brand. In addition to their own marketing strategies, an army of worldwide proponents can help sell the benefits of Street View and similar services. It is important, however, not to be complacent.

In order to achieve successful change in the use and perception towards new mapping services, organizations like Google must clearly articulate their goals and communicate their bold visions in a manner that is both confident and receptive to concerns and feedback from a variety of sources.

Overall, when it comes to photographs and other media that are being handled in new and different ways, the organizations (or individuals) publishing the material must always maintain a professional and responsible stance. In particular, they must remember and communicate that even in a world where reality TV rules the ratings, not everyone wants to be in the picture and that privacy (of person or property) need not – and should not – be compromised for purely recreational purposes.

So what will be shown on these 3D sets? Most people don’t want to spend lots of cash on something that mostly delivers what their existing set currently offers. Looking forward, there are opportunities for the creation of new 3D sports and entertainment, and potential to give new life to back catalogues of material. There is also scope to support advances in video games and other peripherals using the television as an output device (e.g. online video streaming). This is where the legal factors kick in. First, the obvious: new features bring new Trademarks, new processes and effects may bring new patents, and new types of content may bring new copyright issues. In particular, if older material is revisited and updated (e.g. the restoration or colorization of old film / TV, there may be legal factors to consider as existing rights may be infringed or compromised for material not in the public domain. Second, the not so obvious: the unknowns. For example, if users have to wear 3D glasses, might there be a technical restriction on the number of active, concurrent glasses used during a single viewing? And what happens if aspects of the new 3D technology blur or question current legal distinctions – especially in terms of the software / Internet realm?

With 3D television still in its infancy in the consumer market there’s time for legal matters to be considered but as the line between offline and online use of televisions becomes blurred, I think it will be interesting to see how the current legislation stands up. ]]> http://brianrowe.org/IMT550/2010/01/25/changing-the-way-we-see-things-short-opinion-blog/feed/ 3