Monday, March 11, 2013

Will We Expect the Media To Protect Location Privacy?

I came across this article from The Telegraph online while putting together the Centre's weekly Spatial Law and Policy Update.  The article references an individual who was very unhappy that an image of his home was available on Google Street View. He was concerned that burglars could use the imagery to target homes in the neighborhood. A number of other sites have subsequently cross-linked to the article.

The reporter's (a "Technology Correspondent") intent is clearly to highlight the need for greater protection of individuals' location privacy. For example, the article cites the reported 'sheer arrogance' of Google in not blurring the pictures of the home, and references the citizens as "security-conscious".

However, the reporter (or editor) included a few other items of information in his article, including:

1. The individual's full name;
2. His city;
3. His neighborhood;
4. His street;
5. His leadership position (in business)
6. A blurred image of a home with a beautiful yard, fronted by a small brick wall and a paved driveway.

Based upon this information, a quick and simple internet search will lead to the individual's exact address (as well as a great deal of other information that the individual wishes were private).  

One can argue the merits of services such as Google Street View and views can differ on the associated privacy concerns. However, I think that most people would be more concerned about the privacy risks associated with the additional information included in the article rather than an image of a home from a publicly accessible street. By granting an interview to the reporter some would argue that the individual has given his consent to the use of his name and "location" - which is a fundamental principle in most privacy regimes. But was that consent "informed". Did the individual know exactly what additional information would be aggregated with his name to provide additional substance to the story and how the information could be used? Most likely not.

I don't mean to suggest that the reporter intended to violate the individual's privacy. Rather, I am trying to point out some of the difficulties in protecting (regulating) privacy from a location standpoint. Society is beginning to recognize what the geospatial community has known for a long time - location information is powerful. And some segments of society are very uncomfortable with this power. However, it is important to acknowledge that most people are so used to giving - and using - location information that it is almost second nature. (For example, the reporter in the article referencing the street, city and individual's name).  There is a real risk that without informed discussion, efforts to protect privacy from a location standpoint will bump up against these customary uses of location information. The result is likely to be some surprising and unintended consequences.

(Some of you will note that this is not the first time I have addressed this particular issue.)

Spatial Law and Policy Survey

The United Nations Initiative on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM) recently sent out a questionnaire to representatives from member nations titled: The Status of National Geospatial Information Management and Systems. Attached to the questionnaire is an addendum that was prepared by the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy at the request of the UN-GGIM. The purpose of the questionnaire is to begin to identify the policy and legal issues that impact the collection, use, analysis and transfer of geospatial information both within and across national borders. 

The UN-GGIM staff agreed to allow the Centre to distribute the Addendum separately so that it can reach as broad an audience as possible. ( A copy can be found on the Centre's website here). I encourage anyone interested to fill it out. (Please note that for administrative purposes it is a pdf so it will need to be scanned and returned via email.) Although the Addendum was prepared for government agencies, most of the issues are also applicable to industry and non-governmental organizations. 

The plan is to analyze the results once they have been received in order to feed them back into the UN-GGIM process. The Centre also plans to review the results to develop future programs and services. In addition, the results will serve as a baseline upon which to compare future developments in Spatial Law and Policy.

I am pleased that the Centre can be a part of what I believe is a very important process. As a result, I encourage you to take a few minutes and fill out the Addendum. I also ask that you forward to others within the geospatial community who might be interested.