• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Italian Data Protection Authority Decision on Google Street View

October 29, 2010 by Giovanni Maria Riccio

Giovanni Maria Riccio is an IP Osgoode research affiliate, a professor of private comparative law at the University of Salerno, and an associate at Mazzetti Rossi e Associate

On October 25, the Italian Data Protection Commissioner issued an interesting decision on Google Street View. Following a similar decision by the German Data Protection Authority, the Italian Authority – after having received several complaints by citizens – has imposed several obligations on the Big G.

First of all, Google cars will have to be clearly marked by means of visible stickers or signs to unambiguously signify that pictures are being taken by Street View. Italian law does not require a specific or written consent by people snapped in the streets or in other public places (such as stadiums, cafes, restaurants, etc.). This means that Google is not expected to collect explicit consents from every individual photographed by Google cars.

However, locations – towns or single areas of large cities – which are scheduled to be visited by Google cars must be published at least three days in advance and this notice must also be broadcast via a local radio and published on the local news section of at least two newspapers.

The decision also held that the Italian Data Protection Code (DPC – Legislative Decree No. 196 of 2003) can be applied to this case, as long as data are collected though equipment located in the Italian territory (pursuant to Article 5 of the DPC). For these reasons, Google will have to appoint a representative established in Italy with a view to application of the Italian legislation on processing personal data.

Posted in Internet, IP, Privacy

2 Responses to “Italian Data Protection Authority Decision on Google Street View”

  1. Matt Lonsdale (IPilogue Editor), on November 1, 2010 at 7:56 pm Said:

    The requirement to give notice seems like it’s going to be tough for Google to get over. Not that I don’t think they have the money to run radio or newspaper ads, it just looks like it will be a logistical nightmare having to give notice as to exactly where the vans will be. No last minute schedule changes allowed.

  2. Kyle Lavender, on November 5, 2010 at 2:03 pm Said:

    I agree with you Matt. There is no doubt in my mind that this is going to slow down Google in their quest to map the world. I’m glad I do not have the responsibility of mapping out an Italian road trip for “the Big G.”

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Making Space for Grandma: The Emancipation of Traditional Knowledge | Focus on Gaming: Q&A with Susan Abramovitch »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Dezso Farkas on Law, Culture, Critique
  • Anand Misir on Implications and Meaning of a Perpetual Licence
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Taking ATRIP Down Memory Lane
  • Cracking Down on Green Mountain Trolls
  • Breach of Confidence: Your “Friends” Can’t Protect You
  • Winners of the Gowlings Best Blog in IP and Technology Law Prize!
  • Beyond Knowledge and Consciousness – The Development of Liability for Misuse of Trade Secrets in the UK
  • The Office of the Privacy Commissioner Calls for Changes to PIPEDA
  • IP Osgoode Welcomes Professor Victor Nabhan
  • Sitting This One Out: SCC Refuses to Clarify “Promise of a Patent” Doctrine
  • IP Osgoode: Call for IPilogue Editor Applications
  • Mamma Mia: Nintendo Flexes Copyright Against YouTube Video Game Reviewers
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (10)
  • Announcements (33)
  • Blogs (26)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (91)
  • Competition (20)
  • Competition Law (15)
  • Contracts (70)
  • copyright reform (159)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (16)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (58)
  • events (91)
  • Fashion Industry (23)
  • Feature Post (211)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (10)
  • General (155)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (276)
  • IP (1255)
    • Copyright (623)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (82)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (160)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (16)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (105)
      • Originality (34)
      • Ownership (108)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (19)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (40)
    • Patents (387)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (75)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (111)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (77)
    • Trademarks (247)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (186)
    • Canada (84)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (44)
    • US (78)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (18)
  • Music Industry (86)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (190)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (67)
  • Reputation Management (5)
  • Smartphones (15)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (31)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (37)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (247)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (10)
  • UK (21)
  • Uncategorized (104)
  • US-Canada Relations (6)
  • WIPO (19)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736