proposal on Web-based Location Based Services
PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC SPACE
(This article was posted on Wednesday the 22 . published Sept. 2010 in the Austrian daily Der Standard. More info here. )
How would react to Germany well, if not send the private company Google, but countries such as China or Pakistan special camera vehicles are to be filming every corner of our country, exactly? If we do not feel threatened in our state sovereignty?
The question is purely rhetorical, however, because Google gives figures for years and has filmed in every corner of our country. Google's approach reveals the helplessness of the policy on this issue and provides uncertainty among citizens.
Either one refers to the antiquated notion of freedom of panorama or one questions the utility of Street View for the citizens on the road. Even the data is in danger of running into the void, because he has to deal with border areas, such as whether a license plate or a face on Street View can be seen. As important as these subtleties in detail may be, so little help to get the virtual collection of the entire public space in the handle.
For years, is emerging in a dramatic way, how dull the weapons of copyright and data protection on the Internet. Too many and often conflicting regional and national laws pry often mutually exclusive. At the same time avoid Many companies in the rule of law, as the case law on the Internet is always related to the physical location of a server. This is then for example, on an island in the ocean, or somewhere in Russia. At the same time it seems the policy to not care that our physical surroundings, what we call the public space that is free from Google Street View regarded as a mere resource. Through its ongoing publication and our "self-publication", the public space is transformed to the published room. It is only natural that apply in this new space rules!
handled Why the policy with the concept of freedom of panorama, although it is clear Street View postcard that no photographer, but a data vacuum cleaners and recycling systems. The real price of all citizens for the free use of spatial data services is the permanent and unconditional release of all their available information and any personal data. Each verified record - including motion profile - a glass drinking citizen is worth real money.
but apart from the purely commercial aspects is emerging a new balance of power between the public space and the published room: In the public space you can move anonymously. In space no one learns to publish the data collected by Google, who they waived View from the CIA, nor can and what will be done exactly with the data. Google works as a digital diary that we write every day voluntarily or involuntarily, as we reveal to us permanently. At the end of the day we get it but never see.
Many citizens in Europe do not therefore understand why it is not possible Google halt. No one understands why Google can enforce the opt-out "principle and it pro-actively raise any objection must be a tight deadline to October 2010! At the same time it is hard to understand why our politicians give the spatial data and images of our cities for interactive media willingly. So how
can establish the modern rules for the published room? How could the policy to regain sovereignty over the physical location and benefit the other, the cities and municipalities of their virtualization? Maybe it's actually not a Lex Google, as it rejects Thomas de Maizière, but simply about the preservation of what we have previously taken for granted: the public space.
An idea could therefore be the virtual use rights of geospatial web services based on the ownership and use rights of specific physical locations to couple. This coupling would only be logical because the establishment and use of a virtual doppelganger of our city and all of its buildings has a fundamental effect on precisely this. One fact we must always keep in mind. The virtual is not the opposite of the real, but the physical. We should therefore extend the term freedom of panorama with the panoramic term protection and achieve a settlement that may better suit a model of "virtual air rights."
The idea of this - we call them - "Virtual Air Rights" would be comparable to the control of air rights in high-rise buildings in the U.S.. The shading that results from a building and the provision of public spaces at street level in New York for example, have direct influence on construction and use rights. This idea would be to answer the question: Do we continue to accept the virtualization of public space, live simply in order to finally give these defenseless in a digital shadow?
The idea of the Virtual Air Rights would be a powerful tool for digital self-determination and to sovereignty over the public space preserved: Each owner of a physical property or a physical home, every community, every city, it could sell rights to a collecting society, Rent or reserve. A city like Munich could refuse, for instance for reasons of preservation or City marketing that made the winning goal in Google Earth and Street View is a virtual McDonalds arches. Just as the city could share in the advertising revenue, so long as it does on billboards in public spaces - to protect individuals, and finally to the profit of the general public!
The forms and details for a reaction, such as creating a kind of Gema for the public space, at this point are still open. We should discuss the possibility of Virtual Air Rights, but as soon as possible!
Stephan Doesinger, 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment