vonDetlef Guertler 31.08.2010


Neue Zeiten brauchen neue Wörter. Doch wer trennt die Spreu vom Weizen? Detlef Gürtler betätigt sich als Wortwart der Nation.

Mehr über diesen Blog

Google-Sprecher Jeff Jarvis hat ein neues Wort entdeckt:

„Amazing (new) German word in its privacy mania: Verpixelungsrecht: The right to be pixelated?“

Gefunden hat es er bei Matthias Lehming:

„Im ARD-Magazin Kontraste fürchtet man sogar durch die staatlichen Eingriffe die Pressefreiheit in Gefahr, da das geplante Verpixelungsrecht schließlich in allen Medien anzuwenden sei.“

Eigentlich handelt es sich ja nicht um ein Verpixelungsrecht sondern um das 1983 vom Bundesverfassungsgericht in Grundrechtsrang erhobene Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung, aber das klingt natürlich nicht so lustig. Und das Streben nach Informational self-determination könnte Jarvis wohl auch kaum als „mania“ bezeichnen, oder?

(Hat-Tip to transblawg)


Wenn dir der Artikel gefallen hat, dann teile ihn über Facebook oder Twitter. Falls du was zu sagen hast, freuen wir uns über Kommentare


aktuell auf taz.de


  • Thanks for joining, Jeff. So we might go on in English for that topic.
    The German constitutional court defined the basic right on informational self-determination back in 1983, long before the worldwide web or Google existed. The key argument was:
    „In the context of modern data processing, the protection of the individual against unlimited collection, storage, use and disclosure of his/her personal data is encompassed by the general personal rights of the [German Constitution]. This basic right warrants in this respect the capacity of the individual to determine in principle the disclosure and use of his/her personal data. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest.”
    That`s what we are talking about concerning pixelation. It`s not about tyrants that forbid the publication of public places, and it`s not about people that forbid the publication of public places – it`s about people that want to decide on their own about the use of their personal data.
    So: If you take a photo of me on the street, you are not allowed to publish it without my permission.
    And: If a StreetView car takes a photo of a street, Google doesn`t have to pixel the street, but the people that could be identified on the photo.
    And: If I allow the Rheinische Post to publish a photo that shows me in front of my house, it doesn`t give Google the right to take a photo of me in front of my house and publish it without my permission. You may call that a stupid behaviour (and maybe it is), but a basic right is a basic right for everyone, even for stupid people.
    Of course it`s a big difference if you take a photo of ME or a photo of MY HOUSE. I agree with you that facades belong to the public space and should be treated like that, but I`m neither a lawyer nor a judge at the constitutional court – for them it might be decisive if the StreetView cameras are taking their pictures from a rather human point of view (not higher than two meters) or if the quality of the pictures is so high that you can identify things inside the house you couldn`t identify if you just passed by.
    Maybe Google streetView would be a good case to adapt the right of informational self-determination to the reality of the year 2010. To draw a line between mania and basic rights, whereever it may lie.

  • Tut mir leid dass mein Deutsch so schlimm ist, also muss ich auf Englisch antworten.

    The key here is that people are fighting about people pictures in public of public places and demanding to be erased — pixelated. That’s why a photographer is now going to mock them by taking pictures of their buildings and linking them to the addresses. As I pointed out in my post, Deutsche Telekom already shows pictures of buildings from multiple angles with names and addresses attached — none of which Google does. There’s the further absurdity of people complaining about Google taking pictures of the outside of their buildings — and posing for pictures on the front page of a newspaper to do so.

    Yes, claiming the right to be pixelated in public and claiming that a *building* has a right to be pixelated from a public image is evidence of mania.

    But it’s more serious than that. It is also a sign of robbing from the public for it’s the public that owns what’s public. And worse, as a precedent, it creates an opportunity for corrupt officials and tyrants to forbid the taking of pictures of public places and public acts. If someone can tell Google not to take a picture can they not also tell the press not to or the blogger next door? There’s the danger in this mania.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht.