Ineffective ban

Need for privacy laws and norms to protect security

The government has recently banned Google's Street View service, supposedly on the grounds of "security concerns". The ban is said to be temporary. It may be reviewed, as and when the proposed Geospatial Information Regulation Bill is passed. However, the draft of that Bill has run into controversy and been withdrawn after it met with multiple objections. The Google Street View service certainly does raise security and privacy concerns. But the government's action also appears arbitrary. Street View uses vehicles to digitally photograph and stitch together 360-degree panoramic views of streets. It has been allowed to operate across India, on and off since 2013, and it has filmed various locations.
 

Street View has even partnered with the Archaeological Survey of India and the ministry of culture to photograph over 100 monuments. Sites like the Taj Mahal, the Qutub Minar, Red Fort and Ajanta Caves are visible. Street View has also taken pictures in the old city of Hyderabad. But the police in Bengaluru objected and so the city is not on Street View. The fact is, similar services are also offered by an Indian company, WoNoBo, which has partnered with the ministry of tourism. WoNoBo has an application with panoramic street views across many cities, including high-resolution views of so-called sensitive locations in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru.

Many countries have, therefore, reviewed security and privacy norms because of the high penetration of digital cameras. In the United States, where Street View service was launched in 2007, there is a list of high-security locations where it is not allowed. In the European Union, vehicles used by Google's Street View must be marked clearly. Google announces places where it will film in advance, online and in the local media. It also claims that images are vetted for three months before being posted on the Web. Licence plates and the faces of individuals are blurred to maintain privacy. There is a reporting mechanism, where requests can be made for images to be blurred, or removed. These measures are to ensure that "opt-out" is possible and security concerns can be addressed.

India lacks legislation and guidelines on what is permissible in these matters. There is no rule forbidding photography in a public place and indeed, there can be no such broad prohibition. If the government deems some area "sensitive", it must place that specific area out of bounds. There is also no law to protect individual privacy and safeguard personal data. Legislation on privacy has been pending, ever since the A P Shah Commission made its recommendations back in 2012. In the absence of such security norms and privacy legislation, this ban seems discriminatory as a similar service offered by another company has not been proscribed. It is an open question how security can be protected if such high-resolution images still remain easily available.

Instead of attempting to exercise discretion in every instance, the government should consider the impact of digital technology and establish clear rules defining high-security locations and focus on protecting those. It should also draft the long-awaited law protecting privacy and personal data. In the absence of such steps, the ban on one such service will serve little purpose.