Google said it will proceed to delete data unlawfully collected by its Street View cars after the internet giant was given 35 days to do so by the Information Commissioner's Office.
A Google spokesman said: "We work hard to get privacy right at Google. But in this case we didn't, which is why we quickly tightened up our systems to address the issue. The project leaders never wanted this data and didn't use it or even look at it.
"We co-operated fully with the ICO throughout its investigation and having received its order this morning we are proceeding with our plan to delete the data".
Google has been given 35 days to delete data unlawfully collected by its Street View cars in the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said.
ICO spokesman Stephen Eckersley said: “Today’s enforcement notice strengthens the action already taken by our office, placing a legal requirement on Google to delete the remaining payload data identified last year within the next 35 days and immediately inform the ICO if any further disks are found.
"Failure to abide by the notice will be considered as contempt of court, which is a criminal offence”.
Google has been threatened with legal action after it was discovered further personal data was unlawfully collected from unsecured WiFi networks by its Street View cars, the Information Commissioner's Office said.
The Information Commissioner Christopher Graham has insisted that the Data Protection Act does not provide a "blanket cover" for senior officials who need to be named in the public interest.
The Care Quality Commission is meeting lawyers now as it decides whether to release the names of its own officials allegedly involved in a serious cover-up over its inquiry into deaths at a Cumbrian hospital.
Mr Graham said there "isn't an expectation of confidentiality (for senior officials) if something has gone badly wrong".
The Information Commissioner has told BBC Radio 4's Today that there was no "blanket ban" on publishing names in reports if disclosure was in the public interest.
Christopher Graham said:
There's no blanket ban under the Data Protection Act that would deal with a situation like this.
If there's an overriding public interest in the names being in the public domain then you shouldn't pray in aid the Data Protection Act, it just looks like a get out.