From Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner.
I WOULD like to respond to the criticism of my office by Ramsay Cudlipp (JEP, 29 April) after we raised questions about Google’s Street View.

While we are well used to being criticised, there are a number of important factual errors in his position that require clarification. I am not a civil servant expressing a personal view on this matter, I am an independent regulator, charged, by the States, to oversee a law that they democratically decided to implement.

The Street View project necessarily handles a significant amount of personal data. The Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 therefore applies. I am sorry if he considers it embarrassing that a person charged with oversight of a law actually makes an attempt to ensure that law is complied with.

I am also rather perplexed that he states that Google have engaged in their data gathering without any problems everywhere else in the world. If he had done even a small amount of research, he would have discovered that this is simply not true. Indeed, there has even been legal action in some countries. A quick Google search would confirm that.

I work closely with other jurisdictions and can assure Ramsay, and the public, that my position reflects that of other regulators in this field.

I made no judgment about the Street View project other than to say it has to comply with the legislation in the jurisdiction in which it is collecting images. I appreciate entirely that a great many people think it is a very good tool and Ramsay states that the vast majority of the younger generation are well used to divulging vast amounts of their personal data online, thus any privacy concerns are effectively irrelevant.

However, if a law has been implemented, is he suggesting that we ignore it if the majority of people are disinterested in the protection it offers?

I am very aware of the generational differences in approaches to privacy. I also deal with the not insignificant fall-out in those cases where individuals, largely the younger generation, have fallen foul of excessive disclosure of their data.

As far as I am concerned, the law, and the rights it affords individuals, applies to all. In a fair society, the law looks after everybody, regardless of their age or generation.

Over the last few days I have had criticism from those who do not think the normal rules of data protection should apply to Google, as well as those who object in strong terms to the taking of images of themselves or their property. The position I have taken, and continue to take, is that Google are required to comply with the legislation which is in force in this Island.

We have been in discussions with Google and they have now registered their data processing in accordance with the Data Protection Law and they have also committed to providing Jersey residents with full details of how they can request the removal of images if they so wish.

That is what the law requires and I am very pleased at how Google have responded since I, together with the regulators of Guernsey and the Isle of Man, made contact with them earlier this week.