Google Camera Car Chased Away

[Cade Antilles]

So, here's the news story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/03/google.anger/index.html

What struck me on this is that, as it's presented in the report, is that the villagers' tactic was to harass the driver because he was "invading [their] privacy".

I understand and respect their urge to protect their privacy, but it doesn't seem to be a fair tactic to harass the poor driver. He's just doing his job. It seems to me that they should have gone through the proper legal channels to block Google, and left the guy (or gal, perhaps) alone. It's the same mentality as screaming at a customer service rep for a company policy that wrongs you in some fashion. Its not his/her fault, they only work for them!

(Can you tell I've worked customer service?)

[Raine]

I agree, 100%

Thats one reason im a bad CSR. Ill tell some one to "PICK OFF! I CANT DO THAT!" and kick them out.

[Matt]

PUBLIC! YOUR PRIVACY IS NOT BEING INVADED IF YOU'RE OUT IN PUBLIC. A PICTURE OF YOUR HOUSE ON THE INTERNET IS NOT INVASION OF PRIVACY.

-m

[Matt]

sorry, I have a lt of rage directed at the people protesting google street view. Find a better cause, for fuck's sake.

-m

[Raine]

PUBLIC! YOUR PRIVACY IS NOT BEING INVADED IF YOU'RE OUT IN PUBLIC. A PICTURE OF YOUR HOUSE ON THE INTERNET IS NOT INVASION OF PRIVACY.

-m

One more reason not to piss Matt off

[Alja-Markir]

sorry, I have a lt of rage directed at the people protesting google street view. Find a better cause, for fuck's sake.

-m

I wonder if this sort of thing becomes more common, how much you wanna bet that gated communities are going to go up in popularity?

~Alja~

[Metcarfre]

Now, see if you had actually read the article, instead of only the headline, you would note that the car was not chased off by some gang. The gentleman spoke to the driver and then called the police. Therefore, yes, he went through the proper legal channels.

Matt... seriously? How could you work up this much vitriol about such a subject? Is it that hard to imagine someone not wanting their home photographed and put on the internet for all to see? No?

Well, then, in that case, I'll see you tonight. Through my night-vision camera.

I know where you live.

[Citin]

People should be forced to agree to a EULA before they are allowed to go outside. I think that's the only way people will understand the difference between a private and public situation.

[Matt]

Take all the pictures of the outside of my building you like, it's already visible to the public.

-m

[Evil Jim]

And we already have hours of video footage from the inside of your apartment so bothering to photograph it beyond that is rather needless.

[Cade Antilles]

Now, see if you had actually read the article, instead of only the headline, you would note that the car was not chased off by some gang. The gentleman spoke to the driver and then called the police. Therefore, yes, he went through the proper legal channels.

Of course I read the article. And, I think you've missed my meaning. If you don't want Google taking pictures of the outside of your house, file suit and talk to your local political representative. Get the legal ball rolling to prevent said pictures from being posted. As I recall, something similar occurred in England already. I can't find the article, but if I recall correctly, the pictures were prevented from being posted because the plaintiffs did the right thing. Calling the cops is what you do when someone trespasses on your property or takes pictures of you taking a shower. Besides, what were the cops going to do? Arrest him for doing his job?

And, I agree with Matt, people protesting Street View need to find a better cause.

[Cureless_Poison]

PUBLIC! YOUR PRIVACY IS NOT BEING INVADED IF YOU'RE OUT IN PUBLIC. A PICTURE OF YOUR HOUSE ON THE INTERNET IS NOT INVASION OF PRIVACY.

-m

My thoughts exactly, people are really trying to stretch the term "Privacy". Unless it's private property which it isn't, people can take pictures all they want.

[Vaughn]

Google will soon be super-mapping Calgary, and if i had more authority over my Roof, i would write "HI GOOGLE" on it.

[Link]

Glad Matt feels the same way I do about this. As a photographer, this whole "you can't take a picture of me or my stuff without my permission, I'll call the police" nonsense drives me nuts. If you or your property are out in the view of the public, you're FAIR GAME.

If you don't want people to see what's in your house, whether they stand outside on the sidewalk, or look at a picture on the internet, PUT UP SOME CURTAINS.

[spartanhelmet]

Affluent douches take the law into their own hands, especially

.. in England

[Tim]

Best StreetView shot ever:



Relevant? Tangentially.


Edit: For more, see link: http://pixelatedgeek.com/2009/03/google ... und-waldo/

[empath]

Best StreetView shot ever:



Relevant? Tangentially.


Edit: For more, see link: http://pixelatedgeek.com/2009/03/google ... und-waldo/

Tim just won this thread.

I'm technically with Matt - if you don't want your house photographed from a public place, install a fence/hedge. But this whole discussion has become moot, thanks to Tim!

[Tim]

For the record, I'm with Matt on this, though less vehemently so.

[Zombaholic]

Agreed, if you're out in the public, then you're not in private. Unless you own the city. Then you could have legal issues of housing over a thousand people

[Dutch guy]

Well technically if you're out in public you are mostly fair game. At least over here.

You can take photographs of a crowd or a group of people out on the street and you would be free to publish those shots. But you can't photograph a specific person out in public and publish the shots without his/her consent. (Although the worst you are gonna get out of it probably is being "forced" to take the picture down by a legal order) Same goes for property like houses. You can go out and photograph a street or a cluster of houses, but you can't target a specific house. Since Google isn't targeting specific houses, it would be legal.

[Septavius]

Also, the argument that burglars would be attracted to the community by checkin' google...seems flawed. If a burglar wants to burgle a house, he probably doesn't live far enough away that he doesn't know where the affluent bits of town are. That and...Burglars can just drive around and LOOK FOR NICE HOUSES. They don't need the internet!

[Master Gunner]

Actually, many burglars will come from a town or two over, just to use that kind of thinking for them. At least, that's how I've heard it happen around here.

That said though, in a place like England, it's likely not hard to know where the rich parts are.

[Cureless_Poison]

Actually, many burglars will come from a town or two over, just to use that kind of thinking for them. At least, that's how I've heard it happen around here.

That said though, in a place like England, it's likely not hard to know where the rich parts are.

Pretty easy in London.

[iwashere33]

from what i can see it was mostly about the idea that the information from the google street view is available to the public, for instance they don't care if there are 50 million cameras in their neighbourhood but those cameras go to some faceless entity that is part of the goverment. The problem comes from the idea that the Public will be able to see their places of residence from anywhere in the world and have access to information regarding that address.

in short, they are worried about axe murders and ex-boyfriends (who isn't?)

[Brad]

drew a little picture there

Awesome. Pretty accurate too. According to my own framing of London, that's Canary Wharf.

Edit: oh wait... no, that'd be a bit to the right. Parliament?

Or the really good Cornish pasty stand by the tube station? He's not a loser, I can tell you.

Makes m'pasties.