Information & Ethics Committee on June 17th, 2009

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

I'd like to turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I understand that privacy officials in Greece have raised some concerns about Google Street View and have asked that images no longer be taken until certain understandings can be reached. Is that correct?

[Jonathan Lister]

I can't speak to the precise issue in Greece.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That is what has been reported here. The Ottawa Citizen reported that on May 12.

I understand one of the concerns relates to the preservation of unblurred images in Google's possession. As I mentioned earlier, Canada's commercial privacy legislation--that's the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act--indicates that no enterprise can possess the personal information of a citizen without that citizen's knowledge and consent.

Knowledge, I believe, can be given through public notification. Consent is much more difficult. You can't stop along the street and ask everybody whose images you're taking, but you are, in Google's case, keeping them in your possession without their permission. This does raise some important privacy concerns. How are you prepared to allay those concerns? Are you prepared to give commitments of a timeframe by which any captured unblurred image will be deleted?

[Jonathan Lister]

Working with the Privacy Commissioner's office and committing to not launch this product--and I remind you that it hasn't been launched yet--until we've met our privacy and legal obligations is the first way that I can assure the committee of our commitment to privacy.

Regarding a timeline, however, I've said that we at Google have decided that Google will not hold those non-blurred images beyond an adequate and non-excessive time, which is in Google's best interest to be as short as possible. So the best way I can answer this question is to tell you that over time we will determine, based on both the need and what is deemed non-excessive, what that timeframe is and report that timeframe.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I appreciate that you've been very good corporate citizens working with the Privacy Commissioner, but there are some concerns about having that data. That's a lot of data to have on millions of people: their whereabouts, the company they keep. That gives a lot of power to your enterprise, and I'm sure you can understand that we would want to have a clear definition of “adequate time” before giving our unbridled support to the practice. Can you appreciate that?

[Jonathan Lister]

I think the best way to answer that question is to again just remind the committee that the pictures are of publicly accessible places. These are images and individuals and places that are readily accessible. The fact that Google is going beyond a lot of other organizations that capture data speaks volumes to our commitment to privacy, and the fact that we commit to blurring those images permanently and not retaining those non-blurred images also speaks to our commitment to privacy and our commitment to individuals' privacy protection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Of course yours are for commercial use. Ordinary other access is not for commercial use. There is a difference. That's why we have PIPEDA, the act.

Mr. Nadeau, please.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Vincent and Mr. Lister.

Right off the top, I want to say that I realize that you cannot stop progress. Computer technology and distributing images or information via search engines are part of a major technological revolution.

I will tell you what image comes to my mind, hoping you will not be upset. I keep thinking of the expression “Big Brother is watching you” from the book written by George Orwell. The images that can be accessed via your search engines can be used by other people. In an article that appeared in March in The Independent, a British newspaper, they said that this was a real boon to criminals.

I am not saying that you do not abide by the legislation but, based on your approach and your perspective, is there any way of ensuring that individuals, businesses or places that you photograph will not become bait for people with the wrong intentions? It is privacy and safety that are at stake here.

[Olivier Vincent]

Perhaps I could give part of the answer.

I'm going to switch to English, if you don't mind, so I don't mix up my vocabulary.

When you innovate, you always enter new territories, which creates questions and sometimes fears. After years of Google's Street View around the planet, I am not aware of a single incident where something really bad happened to somebody, or even slightly bad. There have been a few urban myths, but nothing has really come out.

When I hear journalists say it's like giving an instrument to criminals, I think that's equivalent to saying that cars allow bank robbers to run away from the scene of a crime and therefore we should forfeit cars. To me that's too overreaching.

I see so many thousands of opportunities to use these maps and street views to enhance everybody's life, to connect people together, to help them to know each other better, which is what communities are about. I think that's what we're doing. That's the real story here.

On the potential privacy risks, yes, we know those concerns are here, but I really have the sense at the moment that with the blurring of the images, the elimination of the files, and the “report a concern” mechanisms, I don't see any way in which privacy is in danger.

[Jonathan Lister]

I largely concur with Monsieur Vincent. I think we're in a period of dramatic change right now, much of which has incredible benefit to society. I think Google tries to be a hallmark and to innovate as well as or better than any company. One of the things Google does really well is that it considers itself to be a participant in this digital ecosystem and a facilitator of innovation. By that I mean there are small businesses and organizations in and around Canada, and in all the constituencies or ridings, who use Google products—mapping being one of them—and integrate them into their own products and drive or push their economic benefit forward. I think we've already talked about Canpages being one of those organizations who use the Google platform to further their economic benefits. These are just some of the positive benefits.

And again, Monsieur Vincent is right. We have received fantastic feedback, and largely positive feedback, in every country we've gone into. We've received many good new stories, everything from the mayor of London being on the record talking about what a great product Street View is, to.... We have received many accolades about Street View once it's been launched.

So while change may be daunting, I think we are in the middle of this and we are pushing forward and trying to drive great economic benefit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Hiebert, please.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thanks to both of you for being here. It's a delight to discuss this issue with you. I have a number of questions, so I'll ask for your comments to be brief.

I want to start with a bit of a brief preamble. Mr. Lister, you made a comment on the “intended” use—you've used that phrase more than once—of this technology and you listed the benefits associated with it. I think what you're hearing around this table is more a concern about the unintended consequences of the use of this technology, something that may not have been anticipated when it was first released.

My first question has to do with the advance notification. You've mentioned that you made an announcement on March 24 about this technology rolling out into Canada, without naming which cities, which dates, or even which weeks. I'm wondering what Google's expectation is for the saturation of this information. Are you planning to do more than just the announcement on March 24?

How are you going to communicate to the communities being affected, or perhaps even the neighbourhoods, that they can expect the car to be coming around to take pictures on such-and-such a day or in such-and-such a week at such-and-such a time of day? So people who don't want their car to be visible, even with the licence plate blurred.... Perhaps it's a very nice car and they don't want the world to know they have that kind of car. Perhaps they want to hide the kids' toys. Perhaps they want to mow the lawn or close the curtains because their home will be on display for the world. To what degree will you be notifying these neighbourhoods about when this is going to be happening and when they can take steps to address these issues?

[Jonathan Lister]

Through Google's March 24 notification and the website I talked about, where we have published the locations of cities where we are currently driving, and through the continued and ongoing press that Google is generating.... We've done press interviews today. We continue to do press interviews. The presence of Street View drivers will continue to become more and more well known, I think, among the general public. We feel that is a really efficient, credible, and effective way to get the word out that we're driving.

On the matter of people who want their images to look a certain way, having done this in nine other countries and having had the cars drive around all the other countries, Google feels as a practical matter that there isn't a way to be very precise about when those cars are driving and where they're driving, for everything from weather and traffic conditions right through to the fact that we don't want to encourage exhibitionism.

We have a number of different reasons why we can't be exactly precise, but I feel that we've met both our obligation and consumer need by publishing the driving locations on the site.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

My next question deals with the removal of the images. You mentioned that this is an option. This is related to the last question, in that I am wondering to what degree you are notifying people about this option that they can actually have their images removed. Is there any justification required? Or can anybody simply say that their image is there and, although they have no reason, they don't want it there?

[Jonathan Lister]

Privacy is incredibly important. We are going to err on the side of privacy protection, so Google would take down those images. As I said, the only occasion on which we won't take down an image is if we're highly confident that it's fraudulent. Other than that, we want to err on the side of an individual's right to privacy and take that image down at their request.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Okay.

I get the sense that the technology has been around for a number of years. Has this technology ever been cited in any kind of civil or criminal case where a plaintiff made the claim that, as a result of this technology, they were more vulnerable to either a property crime or personal injury? Has Google ever been cited, not as a plaintiff, per se, but simply cited in a lawsuit where somebody has made the claim that this technology made them more vulnerable?

[Jonathan Lister]

Not to my knowledge, and I think that when individuals use the product, you'll realize where its limitations and abilities are. If I may, I can give you a quick example of where it's been used to great benefit.

There was a case a couple of weeks ago—I'm not sure of the exact time, but we can get that for you—in which the police in Massachusetts used Street View for its intended purpose to recover or find a little girl who had been kidnapped in Massachusetts. They found her in rural Virginia. After locating the general area through GPS on the cellphone, they used Street View to find out what types of buildings were in that area. They found that one of the buildings was a motel and they felt that was the most likely place for the girl to be. They were able to recover the girl through what I think was a creative use of the tool.

That's what we see. When the product is launched, individuals and commercial interests find more and more beneficial uses for the product. This is why it's been widely received.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Siksay, please.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lister, does Google depend on the media to do the notification? Is that where the bulk of the information gets out about how and where Google will be photographing?

[Jonathan Lister]

We meet our obligation, I think, under the Privacy Act and we certainly use the media and we certainly have been covered in the media quite broadly over the last number of months on the product.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Has Google taken any advertising, post-it notices on the search engine home page, that kind of thing, where folks might encounter this information in ways other than reading about it or seeing it on the television?

[Jonathan Lister]

The March 24, 2009 coverage was frankly so significant and the subsequent coverage that we're getting the media has been so significant that this has proven to be, we think, a very compelling and effective strategy for letting people know that the product is out there, or rather that we're driving cars and intending to launch the product.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Okay. I guess this goes to both Mr. Vincent and Mr. Lister.

You have a commercial purpose in mind when you're using this information. I guess you're trying to get people to visit your website so that you're making money somehow by offering this service. Would you agree with that statement, that there's a commercial purpose?

[Jonathan Lister]

Absolutely. However, I would just remind the committee that Google, through its intentions to innovate and through its innovations, provides an incredible amount of free service to both consumers and businesses, whether it's our search engine, our maps, or g-mail. We're providing an enormous amount of free service. At the end of the day, this product will be part of our mapping portfolio, part of our maps product, and we advertise on maps, or we sell advertising on maps, so we will be absolutely commercializing the product. It's part of a broader strategy to have Google as a platform that can be built upon, and a part of that is giving away a tremendous amount of free service to consumers.