StatusCake

Google Told by UK Privacy Regulator to Delete Street View Data

website down

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office, the ICO, announced on Friday last week that it had served Google with an enforcement noticerequiring the search-engine giant to delete all so called “payload data” it collected as part of its Street View project.

The ICO, the UK’s privacy regulator set up with a remit to “uphold information rights in the public interest, [and] promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals”, gave Google just 35 days to comply with the notice.

Although Google have escaped a fine over this data breach, according to the BBC the breach failed to “meet the level required to issue a monetary penalty”, failure to comply with the enforcement notice is a serious matter.  And according to Stephen Eckersley, the ICO’s Head of Enforcement, would be considered as contempt of court; a criminal offence under UK law.

This latest, and likely to be final ruling over Google’s UK 2010 Street View activities comes after a protracted investigation.  The initial investigation was only instigated after Google itself admitted itself on its official blogthat its Street View cars had accidentally collected information from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks.

At the time the ICO believed that the payload data didn’t contain any “meaningful personal details” and that the data couldn’t be linked to identify any individuals.  Although the ICO decided to take no action, the US Federal Communications Commission, the FFC, carried out its own investigation – the findings of the FFC and its report ultimately fining Google $25,000 for deliberatively obstructing and delaying the FFC’s investigation.   The German authorities likewise took a dim view to Google’s activities.  Imposing a fine of £128,000, the maximum fine permissible under German data and privacy laws, the regulator claimed that the Street View data collection was one of the “biggest know data protection violations in history.”

It is the public of the FFC report, and in particular the concerns raised about the actions of the Google Engineer who developed the Street View data collection software, that prompted the ICO to re-open its investigation.

The ICO itself felt that the lack of proper supervision of these engineers, including an audit of the Street View software code to determine exactly what it did, was a serious procedural and management failing.  Although Google had intended to map the location of Wi-Fi networks, a piece of code created by Google Engine Marius Milner has the unintended consequence of also collecting vast amounts of private data being sent by individuals over their unsecured Wi-Fi connections.

The ICO’s investigation fell short however of stating, as others have, that Google has a corporate policy of collecting as much information as it can about individuals, and dealing with the issue of privacy and laws if and when they got caught.

In a shot across the bows of Google, the ICO said that going forward it would take a “keen interest” in the operations of Google and would “not hesitate to take action if further serious compliance issues [came] to its attention.”

The pan-European investigation by data regulators into whether Google’s privacy policy adequately and clearly explains to users how their information is being collected and used across Google products and services continues.  It is understood that the UK’s ICO will be shortly writing to Google to explain its initial findings.

James Barnes, StatusCake.com

Share this

More from StatusCake

A Notification List Is Not a Team

3 min read In the previous post, we looked at how alert noise is rarely accidental. It’s usually the result of sensible decisions layered over time, until responsibility becomes diffuse and response slows. One of the most persistent assumptions behind this pattern is simple. If enough people are notified, someone will take responsibility. After more than fourteen years

Alert Noise Isn’t an Accident — It’s a Design Decision

3 min read In a previous post, The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most, we explored how incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones. These are moments where decision-making under pressure and cognitive load matter more than perfect root cause analysis. When systems don’t support people clearly in those moments, teams compensate.

The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most

4 min read In the previous post, we looked at what happens after detection; when incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones, with cognitive load as the real constraint. This post assumes that context. The question here is simpler and more practical. What actually helps teams think clearly and act well once things are already

When Things Go Wrong, Systems Should Help Humans — Not Fight Them

3 min read In the previous post, we explored how AI accelerates delivery and compresses the time between change and user impact. As velocity increases, knowing that something has gone wrong before users do becomes a critical capability. But detection is only the beginning. Once alerts fire and dashboards light up, humans still have to interpret what’s happening,

When AI Speeds Up Change, Knowing First Becomes the Constraint

5 min read In a recent post, I argued that AI doesn’t fix weak engineering processes; rather it amplifies them. Strong review practices, clear ownership, and solid fundamentals still matter just as much when code is AI-assisted as when it’s not. That post sparked a follow-up question in the comments that’s worth sitting with: With AI speeding things

Make Your Engineering Processes Resilient. Not Your Opinions About AI

4 min read Why strong reviews, accountability, and monitoring matter more in an AI-assisted world Artificial intelligence has become the latest fault line in software development.  For some teams, it’s an obvious productivity multiplier.  For others, it’s viewed with suspicion.  A source of low-quality code, unreviewable pull requests, and latent production risk. One concern we hear frequently goes

Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?

Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021

*By providing your email address, you agree to our privacy policy and to receive marketing communications from StatusCake.