Threat of 'new Street View' looms

Changes to Google’s privacy policies “do not eliminate” the risk of another Street View Wi-Fi fiasco, according to the data watchdog, which has warned the company that it will continue to monitor its activities.
The claims follow an audit of Google’s data protection policies, after the company admitted unlawfully collecting data from household Wi-Fi networks, including emails and passwords, while compiling its Street View mapping service.
The Information Commissioner’s Office completed the audit last month, and, while broadly positive about the company’s progress so far, it also found there are improvements to be made.
“I’m satisfied that Google has made good progress in improving its privacy procedures following the undertaking they signed with me last year,” said Commissioner Christopher Graham in a statement. But he warned that the ICO will continue to keep a close eye on the firm, adding: “The ICO’s Google audit is not a rubber stamp for the company’s data protection policies.”
The regulator did praise a number of new policies implemented by Google, such as Privacy Design Documents, which ensure that all new projects undergo an in-depth assessment so that privacy is built in from the start, and advanced data protection training for engineers.
Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy, product and engineering, said in a blog post that the company is pleased with the ICO’s report, but will continue to work at its policies to ensure they are fit for purpose.
“We know that there is no perfect solution, so we will continue to improve our current processes and develop new ones so that privacy awareness grows and evolves alongside Google.”
When the Street View case first emerged in November last year, it sparked a major row between Parliament and the ICO after claims that the data regulator had been ‘lilly-livered’ in its handling of the privacy breach.
At the time, Tory MP Robert Halfon claimed: “When its officers first investigated this outrage, they visited Google’s headquarters, had a nice chat with its senior executives, went through their computers and decided to do nothing.”
However, Graham hit back, saying it was Parliament’s fault for not giving his office sufficient powers to come down hard on the company.