http://www.express.co.uk/

http://telegraph.co.uk/…

The unnamed driver was busy mapping a street in the village of Wool in Dorset when a local photographer spotted the controversial Google vehicle.

But the multinational’s driver was outraged by the invasion of his privacy when the snapper started taking pictures of the car.

The freelance photographer, who wishes to remain anonymous, says that with all the privacy issues surrounding Google’s new Street View technology it is ironic that the Google driver should get upset about having his picture taken.

The 58-year-old electrician and part-time photographer said: “When I saw the [Google] car I thought to myself nobody has got any decent pictures of this yet so I hopped out the van and started to take some pictures.

“He was not happy about it. I could tell by his body language and facial expressions.”

The Google driver then proceeded to shout at the photographer and said: “Don’t you take pictures of me, mate.” He then asked the photographer to blur his face out of the pictures as Google does in its Street View images.

The photographer managed to get about six to eight photographers of the car which had a pole-mounted revolving camera protruding from the top.

For months, Google’s Street View vehicle has been roaming the streets of Britain, capturing 360-degree images of streets and the people on them.

Since it launched millions of Britons have gone online to look at their own houses or landmarks.

However, residents in the village of Broughton in Buckinghamshire have remained off the map after blocking the vehicle from entering their area.

There are concerns over peoples privacy and some worry that Street View helps criminal’s scope out targets for burglary or car theft.

Google have said they would remove any image on request, which can be done by clicking a link on the Street View Web site.

So far pictures that have been taken down after they were featured in the press – include one of a man walking out of a sex shop and another throwing up on the sidewalk outside a London pub.

Privacy International, a pressure group, has begun legal action against the company in an effort to bring down the mapping service.

Sure… the driver being upset because he was being photographed is a bit ironic. I think the bigger irony is that the British subjects seem to be getting all bent out of shape over Google’s static image capturing yet they allow their government to install 1 CCTV camera for every 14 of them. Realtime tracking of individuals, cars, habits… no problem. Static photos of the neighborhood that are actually useful… outrage.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/…

The Met Police got a short sharp rap over the knuckles yesterday, as the Office of the Information Commissioner questioned what looks very much like a blanket policy to force CCTV onto public houses in certain parts of London.

The story begins with a letter to the Guardian last week, from Nick Gibson. He is currently renovating Islington pub The Drapers Arms, after its previous owners allowed it to go insolvent and then disappeared.

In his letter, he argues that if he had merely taken over an existing licence, the police could not have imposed any additional conditions. However, because this was now a new licence, the police were able to make specific requests, including one particular request in respect of installing CCTV.

Mr Gibson wrote: “I was stunned to find the police were prepared to approve, ie not fight, our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them upon request. There was no way that they could have imposed this on the previous licence holder.”

We spoke to the Police and to Islington Council. The Council were clear that this was not their policy: they would look at individual licence applications in the light of representations made to the Licensing Committee and decide on a case by case basis.

It was left to the Met to confirm the existence of a blanket policy for some parts of London. A spokeswoman for the Met said: “The MPS overall does not have a policy of insisting CCTV is installed within licensed premises before supporting licence applications.

“However, individual boroughs may impose blanket rules in support of their objectives to prevent crime and disorder and to assist the investigation of offences when they do occur.

“Islington is one of the most densely populated districts for licensed premises in London and the borough’s licensing authority is committed to providing a safe environment in which to socialise.

“To this end, Islington police recommend all premises are required to install CCTV and make those images available to police upon request before a licence is granted.”