Google: A Map to Your World

Google Maps is slick and brimming with potential. Privacy and security? If Maps will bump the stock up, who cares?

In fact this is precisely what Google and its "location intelligence" technology provider Keyhole argued when I sent them nine questions and got one abstracted reply. (See the transcript below.) "Keyhole is built from information that is already available from both commercial and public sources," wrote PR rep Barry Schnitt. "The same information is available to anyone who flies over or drives by a piece of property."

I was also directed to Google's general privacy statement, its general terms of service statement and the terms of use for the Google Local search engine. Neither the privacy policy nor the general terms of service mentions "maps" once. The terms of use page for Google Local mentions maps a lot, but only in the context of intellectual property ownership and accuracy of the maps. Privacy is not addressed.

In other words, the Maps product, while new and powerful, doesnâ¬"t merit a rethinking of the general canned lawyerspeak that already governs the rest of Google.

When privacy was addressed publicly, it was blown off with a remarkably narrow and careless observation by John Hanke, the general manager of Keyhole. No reason to worry, Hanke told The New York Times, "Because the images generally are six to 12 months old. And it's not like you are going to be able to read a license plate on a car or see what an individual was doing when a particular image was taken."

If he really believes his own explanation, and wasn't simply blowing off the reporter, then Hanke has no earthly idea about security, safety and privacy. As if the fact a map is old will prevent someone from using it for workplace violence, or mischief against public places and symbols. As if the only way to violate privacy is to give away certain self-identifying characteristics.

Irresponsible, if you ask me. Think of it this way: If a large port rolled out a new, highly efficient vessel tracking system which helped it load and unload ships, only later it turned out that the efficiency gains threatened the port security and safety, there'd be Capitol Hill hearings faster than you can say steroids. Entire bodies of law exist to govern what ports can and can't do, and those laws come at the expense of efficiency (and hence, profit). You're not allowed to introduce products into the ports without public policy discussions first.

But in the IT industry, laissez-faire ethics rule and the sense of public responsibility is nil.