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.
Speaking as a Brit of course
In other words, they have far worse things to worry about. Are they even aware? Protest against their governement, not f'ing Google.
Even worse is it's got the Opel Badge on it.
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.
WTF could he possibly mean otherwise?
WTF could he possibly mean otherwise?
Aha, you're right. I read the "facts and logic" bit wrong.
Sorry
Made me aware that someone might be able to identify my indoor grow op from odds and ends laying around in my backyard.
Not everyone works 9-5 Mon-Fri
Last edited by warwagon on 04 Apr 2009 - 05:36
So, you wouldn't mind it if they stuck cameras throughout your home as well?
[< edited > - Calum - censoring an offensive word in the quote]
Last edited by Calum on 04 Apr 2009 - 12:35
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.
+1
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"
... hehe
And please, nobody reply with "Get a higher fence then"
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.
Got a link to proof or are you just pulling numbers out of the air?
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...
These claims about taking photos on the street are against "privacy" are absurd and make no sense.
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!
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?
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.
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.
That is a ridiculously drastic comment. No one has said such a thing throughout this article or its comments.
Sarcasm which isn't remotely funny
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.
"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?"
Also, I am sure thieves could just look over the fence themselves...
Agreed! I can see the top of my house in Google Earth all day every day
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.
dude, Google streetview is a WEBSITE. It's on the same level of spyware as Neowin, ie none (hopefully
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.
What is the meaning of "wrods"?
What is the meaning of "wrods"?
Already saw and edited that before I saw your comment.
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.
how do you know she is a witch?
SHE LOOKS LIKE ONE!
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by lee26 on 03 Apr 2009 - 21:27
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.
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.
Last edited by lee26 on 03 Apr 2009 - 21:59
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.
It is a static photo, its just a HUGE one. Get over yourself. its 2009 BOY!
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.
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.
Last edited by duneworld on 04 Apr 2009 - 15:01
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
It's a protest that happened to obstruct traffic. Then it's no longer about protesting or not, but about obstructing traffic.
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...
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.
eugh, words escape me.
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.
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.
Both this:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
And this disagrees:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographer...law.html#people
So while the house are beeing shot we can't really say the Google Street View car is directly photographing houses.
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.
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
did I forget to mention that it's PUBLIC? no privacy there.
Grow up people, its the 21st century. OMG SOMEONE CAN SEE MY HOUSEEE, NOOOOO
David.
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...
now excuse me while I go tell people walking by my apartment to stop looking at my place
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?
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
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?
Now people go batshit 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.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.