Google street view car blocked by angry mob

A Google street view car was met by an unruly crowd in the UK. Some homeowners in the town of Broughton, UK were upset that a Google car was driving and taking pictures of their homes and gardens.

"A member of the public had called us to report that he, along with a number of others, were standing in the middle of the road preventing the car from moving forwards and taking photographs. They felt his presence was an intrusion of their privacy."

Google did respond to the allegations that they do provide tools that allow users to remove the pictures of their homes to regain privacy. While it is understandable that one may be upset that a picture of their property is being shown online one must also understand that it is a static picture and not a video feed.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

AT&T new TOS kills off streaming, Skype and Hulu

Next Story

Twitter co-founder responds to recent rumors

97 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So people go bat**** crazy when there's a possibility of Google handing over user data that is personally identifiable and we consider it an invasion of privacy.

Now people go bat**** crazy on the people who say it's an invasion of privacy to take pictures of--and this is their ultimate goal--every house in the world.

Search results = Confidential
Pictures of where I live, where my neighbor lives, where all the windows on my house are, what my door looks like, what my garage looks like, what car I have, etc. = Post that **** on the internet because there's not even a possibility of it being used for potential harm. Besides, if it is used for potential harm then it could have been done anyway, now it's just 200 times ****ing easier! But I don't care about that!

lol.

LOL, how many people are now going to strap a tripod and camera to the top of their cars and drive through the village just to p*ss off the natives.

they do provide tools that allow users to remove the pictures of their homes to regain privacy

The next step is to sue Google for making people go through the steps of removing pictures they didn't want online in the first place. "Do no evil" just gets better and better, doesn't it?

quite the opposite of this then , eh? http://www.lemondrop.com/2008/11/18/google...iew-goes-artsy/

i think that google should have distributed leaflets or something before sending the car there... that way stuff like this wont happen, if people are going to disapprove of it, their entire town will be missing from street view and google wont waste time and effort sending the car just to be met by a mob like that...

No this is retarded..plain and simple. IF I decide to have sex in public, masturbate, or do something stupid...I can't turn to anyone in the area and say "hey stop looking at me give me some privacy" It's called a public area for a good reason. Read my previous comment...if they want privacy with their homes, go live in a gated community or in an area with a ton of acres so that they can live away from the main roads...

now excuse me while I go tell people walking by my apartment to stop looking at my place

The point you were trying to make was lost with your horrible, horrible, horrible examples. And your point also sucked.

You're right, it's not against the law to take pictures of all my ****. But if I see you doing it I'm going to have a problem with it.

It's not against the law for people to continue watching people have sex in public. But if you kept watching I'd **** you up.

Public means accessible by all, and there's no debate about that. But how can you not realize that laws should only be used to the point of common sense? Even though it's legally justifiable for me to stand in front of your house and watch you for hours on end taking pictures, it doesn't mean that you wouldn't have a ****ing problem with it does it?

SirEvan said,
No this is retarded..plain and simple. IF I decide to have sex in public, masturbate, or do something stupid...I can't turn to anyone in the area and say "hey stop looking at me give me some privacy" It's called a public area for a good reason. Read my previous comment...if they want privacy with their homes, go live in a gated community or in an area with a ton of acres so that they can live away from the main roads...

now excuse me while I go tell people walking by my apartment to stop looking at my place

i meant like, google should consult with the people of the town , at least to see if they are mob-prone and anti-streetview or not

I agree with everyone saying that this is stupid. If a burglar want's to rob your house, then heck, he can go and drive down your street himself, and probably do more by looking in your windows at night, behind fences etc,

Grow up people, its the 21st century. OMG SOMEONE CAN SEE MY HOUSEEE, NOOOOO

David.

as stated in various ways before....PUBLIC STREETS PEOPLE....you don't want your house photographed, go save up your pounds/euros and go buy a place in a gated community, or on a ranch far from any PUBLIC street, so that anyone in the GENERAL PUBLIC can't see it....or be visible from PUBLIC roads....


did I forget to mention that it's PUBLIC? no privacy there.

Isn't the UK known for their CCTV and lack of privacy?

Also, why the hell would they bring streetview into a tiny town like that? Correct me if I'm wrong cause my knowledge of countryside UK is ****, but... wiki says Broughton is a population of 1,367? Google is trying too hard.

splur said,
Isn't the UK known for their CCTV and lack of privacy?

Also, why the hell would they bring streetview into a tiny town like that? Correct me if I'm wrong cause my knowledge of countryside UK is ****, but... wiki says Broughton is a population of 1,367? Google is trying too hard.


Here in Australia, they have photographed hundreds of tiny towns, some with only a handful of houses. My house has been there for the past 6 months and we have not had a burglar yet :-)

Mike

Two things:

1) All they had to do was get the pictures removed via the normal procedures.

2) The UK law as it stands clearly disallows this anyway. If you take your camera on the street and begin photographing houses which include visibility within private property, you are committing and offence under UK privacy law. UK privacy laws allow the right to reasonable privacy - which includes the photography of private land and buildings. This applies to still photography and motion film/photography and you do not have to be on private property to fall foul of it.

Bingo.

I don't see the need to go and photograph people's homes anyway, chances are if you're going to be traveling to someone's home they will have given you directions.

I can understand streetview being useful for densely packed city centres where you might be looking for a shop or etc, but as far as homes go it's nothing more than Humankind's innate desire to snoop.

Actually the other day my flat mate called me as he was out of town looking for a location and was lost, using a combination of of Google maps and street view we tracked down where he was and where he was supposed to be.

SoupDragon said,
2) The UK law as it stands clearly disallows this anyway. If you take your camera on the street and begin photographing houses which include visibility within private property, you are committing and offence under UK privacy law. UK privacy laws allow the right to reasonable privacy - which includes the photography of private land and buildings. This applies to still photography and motion film/photography and you do not have to be on private property to fall foul of it.

Both this:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

And this disagrees:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographer...law.html#people

I never used Google Street View so i could be wrong but i thought the goal of Google Street View was to provide a normal view one would have by driving in the street.

So while the house are beeing shot we can't really say the Google Street View car is directly photographing houses.

So true, this is the kind of people that go nuts if I would photograph their garden. Get a clue -- it's visible from the street! Are they going to gouge the eyeballs out of people passing by as well? This is all legal to photograph.

No offence, though i'm sure this will cause some

The whole invasion of privacy thing is utterly pathetic, aslong as these streetview cars aren't driving on peoples front lawns, drives or property - they're doing nothing more than anyone else can do.

If you don't like it, get it removed - they're pulling forward in the world of technology. Until factfull data proves that robberies are up due to street view, i'll refuse to beleive it actually makes much/if any difference at all.

invasion of privacy.... BUILD A FENCE THAT NO ONE CAN SEE THROUGH!!!

Hate people like this...

Its visible form the road its not an invasion of privacy

The guy says the quality of their shots??? Has this guy used google maps? the shots arnt clear for a reason...

Bet u this guy will plan his next holiday using SV to see where to dine...

All those standing in the street should have been arrested for impeding traffic. Pretty sure even in the UK standing in the middle of the street is a crime... whereas just driving on public streets isn't. Go figure...

It's a small protest which are allowed by law. Only big protest like what you saw recently in London need prior permission beforehand.

It's a small protest which are allowed by law

It's a protest that happened to obstruct traffic. Then it's no longer about protesting or not, but about obstructing traffic.

this is pretty rich coming from the country with the most closed circuit cameras ever.

we see in this argument what is wrong with many arguments pertaining to technology; the people making decisions haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what in the hell they are talking about.

you have NO claim to privacy in pubic - none, ever. its always been this way.

the street view product provides no information i couldn't get my self by simply walking down your street. in fact, the street view information is far less interesting as its old. its a single point in time. i can walk down your street with a video camera as often as i want. i could film you picking up your news paper every morning and post it on the internet and still be within my rights as you are IN PUBLIC and anyone there on their own free will would have seen the same thing.

i cant even believe i taking the time to post this is so absurd.

This is precisely what i was going to post, so spot on sir!

I can't believe people are moaning about a few bloody pictures of their house when pretty much everything they do is on CCTV video anyway!

this is pretty rich coming from the country with the most closed circuit cameras ever.

That was my first thought too. WTF? They are RIDDLED with them, and they choose to protest against Google that even anonymizes all the faces instead of their government that does it secretly without anonymizing (actually -- the exact opposite). What.. are... they... thinking...?

Also, yes, if anything, it's the mob here that's violating the law here by some sort of "unruly behavior", because this is of course perfectly OK, being in public. They have no legal support whatsoever in this, and legally speaking it's like choosing to uproar against a random car on the street.

How precisely does one remove their house image from Street View. I've looked and all I can find is a reference to "objectionable content". It looks like Google is acting as every other corporate bully acts - making soothing public statements while doing what the hell they like behind the scenes.

Your house photo may not be a big issue but when corporations make public assertions about their "holiness" while they have no intention of doing other than what they please - Well thats how we got into the current mess the world's institutions created isn't it.

Take 'em down I say.

There's a Report a Problem button at the bottom when you're looking at Streetview on Google Maps. You then go about setting in focus and specifying what exactly you have a problem with, as well as your email I suppose so that they can provide you with some sort of confirmation.

Not sure how long the process takes really, but as previously stated, there is a means to go about resolving whatever issue you may have. I don't think they could help you though if you're trying to get a street removed like some idiot wanted apparently...

Oh, and for what it's worth, I simply Google'd for the information.

People could also plan those same burglaries by driving around a part of town they want to rob, then decide with their own eyes. Breaking and entering has been around longer than the internet hasn't it?

The fear is that a someone could plan a burglary from seeing peoples houses from pictures taken by Google. I for one believe if there's a slightest chance no matter how small that this could happen then Google shouldn't be allowed to do this without gaining permission from the residents beforehand.

Also no way can they say it's a static photo. If you can zoom in and out and move the picture about then how on earth is that static?

Static by definition as stated in the Oxford English Dictionary (EOD) means "staying in one place without movement".

To me it's more like a video or more specifically a motion picture. It's obviously a picture and it's obviously in motion. Motion picture itself is another name for a film or video.

Motion by definition as stated in the OED means "the act or process of moving, or a particular action or movement".

Google need to learn meanings of words before they make retarded claims like that anyways good on those people. Nice to see people and a community standing up for what they believe in.

People need to ask themselves and think about how they would feel if their house was broken into by someone who spotted their house on a Google street view map.

I'm sure the majority of use would be pretty angry and would demand te picture to be removed.

bouncingjohn said,
"Google need to learn meanings of wrods"

What is the meaning of "wrods"?


Already saw and edited that before I saw your comment.

lee26 said,
The fear is that a someone could plan a burglary from seeing peoples houses from pictures taken by Google. ..........

Static by definition as stated in the Oxford English Dictionary (EOD) means "staying in one place without movement".
.......

People need to ask themselves and think about how they would feel if their house was broken into by someone who spotted their house on a Google street view map.

How could you plan a robbery from a google streetview map? You think some burglar is going to go on google to scope out a house rather than taking a trip to your street to scope out your place? Are you absurd?

And its not motion either you straw grasper. Zooming in a picture does not make it motion. Can I goto google street view and watch your grass grow? Can I watch you check the mail? Get the paper?

It's amazing how stupid people are these days.


Just because you can move around the picture and zoom in/out does not mean that it is not static. Load up any photo into any image program and you csan do the same thing.

lee26 said,
To me it's more like a video or more specifically a motion picture. It's obviously a picture and it's obviously in motion. Motion picture itself is another name for a film or video.

how do you know she is a witch?
SHE LOOKS LIKE ONE!

Knad said,
Just because you can move around the picture and zoom in/out does not mean that it is not static. Load up any photo into any image program and you csan do the same thing.


You can't move a static photo around to see other parts of that location like you can with this service so you're seriously wrong.

tonyxcom said,


How could you plan a robbery from a google streetview map? You think some burglar is going to go on google to scope out a house rather than taking a trip to your street to scope out your place? Are you absurd?

And its not motion either you straw grasper. Zooming in a picture does not make it motion. Can I goto google street view and watch your grass grow? Can I watch you check the mail? Get the paper?

It's amazing how stupid people are these days.



You can move the image around to see other parts of that location which is not static therefore it's motion. Like I said motion mean the act or process of making somthing move which is what you do when you move the image around.

Also have you never heard of opportunism? A mugger doesn't plan on who and where their going to mug someone they do it by chance the same could happen here. Someone could easily see a house on google maps and think it looks worth burgling.

OH MY GOD BECKY!!!

So if you look through a peep hole at your yearbook picture, then move the book around so you can see the smarter students around you.... you now have motion????? The only way I would have motion is if I could see the other students laughing at you.

Here is what a sane and logical person would interpret this.
When I look at the picture of your house. Is there movement in the objects in that picture? Does the grass and plants move from the wind?

NO!!!!

Because its a STATIC picture. The image represents 1/250th of a second of time. You can pan and zoom around the picture all you want. You will only see what Google saw in that 1/250th of a second.

You would have to be a complete moron to argue any different.

tonyxcom said,
OH MY GOD BECKY!!!

So if you look through a peep hole at your yearbook picture, then move the book around so you can see the smarter students around you.... you now have motion????? The only way I would have motion is if I could see the other students laughing at you.

Here is what a sane and logical person would interpret this.
When I look at the picture of your house. Is there movement in the objects in that picture? Does the grass and plants move from the wind?

NO!!!!

Because its a STATIC picture. The image represents 1/250th of a second of time. You can pan and zoom around the picture all you want. You will only see what Google saw in that 1/250th of a second.

You would have to be a complete moron to argue any different.


By definition it's still motion. I didn't come up with the definition so don't shoot the messenger. Also of course turning a page in a book is motion. How do you think animated films were made before computers came about.

lee26 said,
You can move the image around to see other parts of that location which is not static therefore it's motion. Like I said motion mean the act or process of making somthing move which is what you do when you move the image around.

You sir, are an un-educated baffoon. There is no motion. It is merely a collection of static images with transition effects applied as you switch from one to another. Transitions effects and morphing can give the illusion of motion, but there is no actual real life motion being shown, so your whole argument is debunked right there. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

lee26 said,
You can't move a static photo around to see other parts of that location like you can with this service so you're seriously wrong.

It is a static photo, its just a HUGE one. Get over yourself. its 2009 BOY!

lee26 said,
By definition it's still motion. I didn't come up with the definition so don't shoot the messenger. Also of course turning a page in a book is motion. How do you think animated films were made before computers came about.

You're using the definition wrong mate. And to correct you on your book analogy, it is the pages moving, not the images on the page. The pages move to give the illusion of movement of the image, when the image isnt changing at all, one more time; it is the pages moving. This applies to Google streetview as well.

lee26 said,
Also have you never heard of opportunism? A mugger doesn't plan on who and where their going to mug someone they do it by chance the same could happen here. Someone could easily see a house on google maps and think it looks worth burgling.

Perhaps you should use your friend the OED again because it appears you don't understand the concept of opportunism, because they would have to be on the internet looking around, possibly with intent to burgle (British English for those that don't know) in the back of their minds. Opportunism means taking advantage of an opportunity immediately. Unless the burglar was next door to the house he was intending to burgle he would be far too far away from the house to 'immediately' take advantage of any opportunity.
Also, they could then show up at the house they fancied on the internet and find that it has completely changed from what they saw on the internet, possibly because the house owner was paranoid about their safety (or privacy) and made changes, which incidentally, didn't get updated on G SV because they are not live images.

NeoandGeo said,
They already have, or are soon going to. :D

I'm sure, then I have to take my time to ask them to remove it... but of course, you can't check until you load their spyware onto your computer. Then when you do complain, they have your address anyway... so it's a lose lose situation.

hagjohn said,
I'm sure, then I have to take my time to ask them to remove it... but of course, you can't check until you load their spyware onto your computer. Then when you do complain, they have your address anyway... so it's a lose lose situation.

Spyware?

Damn your head must be really sore. I've heard tin-foil can chafe after a while.

hagjohn said,
I'm sure, then I have to take my time to ask them to remove it... but of course, you can't check until you load their spyware onto your computer. Then when you do complain, they have your address anyway... so it's a lose lose situation.

dude, Google streetview is a WEBSITE. It's on the same level of spyware as Neowin, ie none (hopefully ;))

This is ridiculous. Anyone can go out and take pictures from public roads, why shouldn't google. It's nice to be able to look at places in street view before you go there sometimes.
Also, I am sure thieves could just look over the fence themselves...

not my quote:

"The village was also featured in the local papers yesterday and much of the national press this morning. So how private is this place now?"

lol, a bit ironic that they were seeking to preserve their 'privacy', yet in the short term they achieved the exact opposite.

leph555 said,
ya all photography should be banned!

That is a ridiculously drastic comment. No one has said such a thing throughout this article or its comments.

Calum said,
Sarcasm which isn't remotely funny :S

Sarcasm doesn't have to always be funny -- it can be used to simply prove a point. The point is, is that Street View is equivalent to someone parking out the front of your house and taking photos. Before you say, "but anyone can do it from their home and just search around any house they want" -- if someone is looking at breaking into a house, then they're probably going to look for something within driving distance -- as in, if there wasn't Google Maps, they would probably just roam the streets looking for a house anyway.

I for one do not think google should have free roam. I'm surprised they got away with it in Canada, and if I saw someone taking a picture of my house I would do the same.

What's next, banning all cameras and cams?

These claims about taking photos on the street are against "privacy" are absurd and make no sense.

agent_9000 said,
I for one do not think google should have free roam. I'm surprised they got away with it in Canada, and if I saw someone taking a picture of my house I would do the same.

See that's the thing. I'm hard pressed to believe anyone would try to stop someone taking pictures of their personal property or belongings IF they actually catch them in the act. The big word here is IF otherwise it's probably happened a bunch of times already but since it's out of your sight it's out of your mind!

undu said,
What's next, banning all cameras and cams?

These claims about taking photos on the street are against "privacy" are absurd and make no sense.

There is no reason why any global company needs to be taking a picture of everyone house. What's next, taking pictures through the windows?

hagjohn said,
There is no reason why any global company needs to be taking a picture of everyone house. What's next, taking pictures through the windows?

Yes, because seeing inside your window helps me get around the city.

Honestly, no one gives a damn about your house unless they're buying it, planning on visiting you, or perhaps even trying to kill you, in which case you should be more worried as to how the person found your home address anyway, as opposed to how they obtained a picture of it.

hagjohn said,
There is no reason why any global company needs to be taking a picture of everyone house. What's next, taking pictures through the windows?

is there no reason for having satellite images of my home on the net? What about removing where I live completly from the map incase by chance someone looks at the map and decides to drive there.

Seriously...it's the same view and picture ANYONE can take any time of the day. I for one have used the service recently when looking for a place to rent. Hell...the major property sites here list all the places with the property marked using google maps.

BeLGaRaTh said,
Load of ******s .. **** off all those involved with the blockade.


So, you wouldn't mind it if they stuck cameras throughout your home as well?

[< edited > - Calum - censoring an offensive word in the quote]

Foub said,
So, you wouldn't mind it if they stuck cameras throughout your home as well?

So, you're comparing taking a picture of a house from the street to be equivalent to placing cameras throughout your home? Instead of pointing out the multiple reasons of why your claim is absurd, I'll just point you at the last statement from the original post:

"one must also understand that it is a static picture and not a video feed"

Also, its of the outside of a house... from the street. ANYONE can take that same picture whenever they want, and it's completely legal. These claims of "invasion of privacy" are ridiculous.

Hitchhiker427 said,
Also, its of the outside of a house... from the street. ANYONE can take that same picture whenever they want, and it's completely legal. These claims of "invasion of privacy" are ridiculous.

+1

Hitchhiker427 said,
Also, its of the outside of a house... from the street. ANYONE can take that same picture whenever they want, and it's completely legal. These claims of "invasion of privacy" are ridiculous.

Bingo. If people are that upset get a fence for your house so no one can see in.

Smigit said,
Bingo. If people are that upset get a fence for your house so no one can see in.

The problem with this issue is that apparently the Google Streetview car's camera was higher above the fences and pictures of people's gardens were still being taken.

And please, nobody reply with "Get a higher fence then" :P

Calum said,
The problem with this issue is that apparently the Google Streetview car's camera was higher above the fences and pictures of people's gardens were still being taken.

And please, nobody reply with "Get a higher fence then" :P


Well why not say it? Again if their fences are 1m high then what do they expect? If you really want privacy build a solid and high one. The camera isn't THAT high up.

Smigit said,
Well why not say it? Again if their fences are 1m high then what do they expect? If you really want privacy build a solid and high one. The camera isn't THAT high up.

Some of their fences were at least 6M high.

Calum said,
Some of their fences were at least 6M high.

Seeing as the minimum height bridges are built to in the UK is ~15.5ft (double-decker buses are built to fit under them) or 4.72m, I declare shenanigans on this comment. Now if you'd meant 6ft that's a different story...

In a way, it's a good thing.

Made me aware that someone might be able to identify my indoor grow op from odds and ends laying around in my backyard.

Wouldn't removing your own house make it more obvious? Something burglars should look out for, they must have stuff worth stealing :-)

excalpius said,
Please don't let facts and logic enter an argument stirred up by British tabloids to sell their rags. 8P

What do you mean?

kravex makes a fair and worrying point. Removing your house could entice burglars to believe there is something worthwhile inside; especially if your house is the only one removed on a street.

shakey_snake said,
Calum, he means he agrees with kravex, and that British tabloids are **** quality.

WTF could he possibly mean otherwise?


Aha, you're right. I read the "facts and logic" bit wrong.

Sorry

It's hilarious that it's in the UK, being the country with the among the (if not *the*) most surveillance cams per capita.

In other words, they have far worse things to worry about. Are they even aware? Protest against their governement, not f'ing Google.