Best regards

I read the IHT article too, the NY Times republished it as well on Monday.

For anyone interested, here are the links:

Once greeted warmly, Google wears out welcome | International Herald Tribune

Privacy Laws Trip Up Google’s Expansion in Parts of Europe | NYTimes.com

We have tangentially touched a couple of times here at BlogEuropa.eu, as well as elsewhere, the issues you raise in your post.

The question over the common european privacy standard would be the first one that common sense would bring to mind. After all, isn’t this a matter that should have been harmonised?

The European Commission at its Freedom, Security and Justice website, under the ‘Data Protection Section’, states the following:

“Developments of a frontier free Internal Market and of the so called ‘information society’ increase the cross-frontier flows of personal data between Member States of the EU. In order to remove potential obstacles to such flows and to ensure a high level of protection within the EU, data protection legislation has been harmonised.“(…) [Emphasis added]

As you and the author of the article both point out, once you start dealing with the matter in real world environments, things tend to get a bit hairier than initially expected.

Google has been advocating for a couple of years now for a common international privacy standard. They argue that it is extremely hard to comply with each and every jurisdiction’s privacy legal requirements when operating an internet venture on a global scale.

One of their latest initiatives in this arena is the so-called: “Global Network Initiative“.
Its website proclaims: “All over the world – from the Americas to Europe to the Middle East to Africa and Asia – companies in the Information & Communications Technology (ICT) sector face increasing government pressure to comply with domestic laws and policies in ways that may conflict with the internationally recognized human rights of freedom of expression and privacy.

In response, a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics spent two years negotiating and creating a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector, and have formed an Initiative to take this work forward.”

At present count you’ll be able to find 24 participants, Google being one of them.

While Google’s side on the argument is undoubtedly a legitimate one, we also need to give consideration to questions like: When dealing with different sensibilities like the ones mentioned in the article, i.e. northern vs. southern europe approach to pictures taken to personal property, which sensibilities should prevail? Why should one practical view, perhaps an “easier to comply with” approach, should be imposed over each and every other one? Which would be then, the right approach?

There isn’t, quite obviously, a right or wrong approach. States within the U.S. have different approaches towards privacy, and this also translates in different requirements in their local jurisdictions. And not only over privacy, take gambling for instance. But I digress.

To your second and last question, I’m afraid I can’t offer a straight yes or no answer.

In Spain, most of the problems that ‘Street view’ initially poised were fixed by the blurring of people’s faces and license plates on cars. This is not to say that it probably didn’t took longer for Google to release the product here than elsewhere where privacy laws might be laxer, but it surely didn’t make it impossible for them.

Google operates some truly excellent services and when it comes to innovation, they are always on top of the list. But if we are talking about incentives, privacy laws are not going to disincentive them. As we have seen, they have both the brains and muscle to succeed in their dealing with them.

Bests, TFS