WillsZenith
a treat for missmanners
im gonna rob sainsburys, then say google made me do it, I had the google car driving up and down my road bout a month ago, we made snowmen with big willies. I laughed.
Fuddlemiff
Is this real life?
What was the point of taking pics when it was snowing? Doesn't exactly give you a good idea of what an area looks like... unless they'll let you change the season that you're viewing next. And then there'll be the night time version.
Hope they don't blur the snowcocks.
Not anyone. My profile is set so only people I'm friends with can see it.
Hope they don't blur the snowcocks.
Not anyone. My profile is set so only people I'm friends with can see it.
The Tomtrek
Love Wookiee
90%* of the people that will complain about Google stealing thier privacy will no realise that you can do this.
*completely made up statistic
SilentBtViolent
Rape Ape
But think about this another way... Is everyone in the world really ENTITLED to be able to look at the place you live without going there themselves? Like should a village / city / community be ABLE to remove themselves from the world's eyes if they so choose?
A step further:
Would it be OK for me to go to south america, into Brasil in Amazonia, and set up a webcam in a frontier village where everybody works in logging, and just broadcast 24/7 on my website called "WATCH THE RAPE OF THE WORLD, LIVE FROM ESPOSITO, BRAZIL!!" Should those people be able to stop me if I buy a house there and set up the camera from the window of my house?
Or what if I want to do the same thing, but outside a preschool, so that you couldn't make out kids' faces, but you could get an idea for the fact that a certain (face distant and therefore blurred, license plate unreadable) female shows up early every morning exactly at 5:30 AM when nobody else is there, and she drives some kind of red SUV?
A lot of these things aren't far away, I think.
A step further:
Would it be OK for me to go to south america, into Brasil in Amazonia, and set up a webcam in a frontier village where everybody works in logging, and just broadcast 24/7 on my website called "WATCH THE RAPE OF THE WORLD, LIVE FROM ESPOSITO, BRAZIL!!" Should those people be able to stop me if I buy a house there and set up the camera from the window of my house?
Or what if I want to do the same thing, but outside a preschool, so that you couldn't make out kids' faces, but you could get an idea for the fact that a certain (face distant and therefore blurred, license plate unreadable) female shows up early every morning exactly at 5:30 AM when nobody else is there, and she drives some kind of red SUV?
A lot of these things aren't far away, I think.
The Tomtrek
Love Wookiee
If Google Street View was somehow a live feed from everywhere in the world, then yes those would be relevant issues.
It's not, though.
It's not, though.
SilentBtViolent
Rape Ape
Come on, everyone knows such things do exist.
HEY EGGS GO WAVE TO US
I think google earth and Street View just socializes my space too much, is all. The liveness / currency of it will get more and more up-to-the-minute JUST YOU WATCH
HEY EGGS GO WAVE TO US
I think google earth and Street View just socializes my space too much, is all. The liveness / currency of it will get more and more up-to-the-minute JUST YOU WATCH
The governments of the world all have much more highly detailed surveillance systems in place spying on all of us without accountability. If we're going to get pissed about anything then we should be pissed about that.
I find the level of CCTV coverage in Britain to be major overkill all in the name of "keeping us safe" which it hasn't been proved to be majorly effective at.
Think of all of the security guards who have live coverage of streets and buildings. It's not like their view is only restricted to private property.
Street View is nowhere near the same league.
Ultimately the question of whether a public street that is there for everyone to use should somehow be protected from the PUBLIC'S view seems strange and just a little bit isolationist.
Technology will keep on advancing and we have to make sure that we save our protests for when something comes along that really threatens our liberty and not merely ruffles our feathers.
I find the level of CCTV coverage in Britain to be major overkill all in the name of "keeping us safe" which it hasn't been proved to be majorly effective at.
Think of all of the security guards who have live coverage of streets and buildings. It's not like their view is only restricted to private property.
Street View is nowhere near the same league.
Ultimately the question of whether a public street that is there for everyone to use should somehow be protected from the PUBLIC'S view seems strange and just a little bit isolationist.
Technology will keep on advancing and we have to make sure that we save our protests for when something comes along that really threatens our liberty and not merely ruffles our feathers.
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
But that's the aspect of this issue I have the biggest problem with: they have to GO there to get it. And I'm not talking terrorists and criminals, I'm talking about the house/car owners' right to privacy.
Having this information on the internet is the same as publishing it in the newspaper, which is understood to be wrong under our historic interpretation of the Bill of Rights. If people want to walk by your house and copy down your plate number for some reason, or pay someone else to walk by there and take a photo, the law can't stop them until a crime is committed. But being able to surf the net and gather this information anonymously and for free is too much.
There's a reason that nobody else took it upon themselves to offer this before Google and Microsoft: there are ethical issues involved that were recognized. Now, two corporations with cute logos and daily exposure in people's lives, who have the massive pile of money and resources needed to do/maintain this service, offer it like a kitten in a basket. Why aren't more people skeptical?
Yeah, that must be it. Nobody who disagrees with you could possibly have a reason, or sane argument. Sheesh!
headvoid
Can I have Ops?
I am really struggling as to why this differs from me going out and taking a picture of a street and publishing it on the internet.
People can gather that information free and anonymously.
I find it slightly odd that we are on one of the most free speech boards I have found, and we are wanting to restrict information. The less secrets the better.
People can gather that information free and anonymously.
I find it slightly odd that we are on one of the most free speech boards I have found, and we are wanting to restrict information. The less secrets the better.
SilentBtViolent
Rape Ape
How is this antithetical to free speech?
It has nothing to do with people saying they have the "right" to check out whether or not I have a swingset in my backyard, with the click of a mouse.
It has nothing to do with people saying they have the "right" to check out whether or not I have a swingset in my backyard, with the click of a mouse.
headvoid
Can I have Ops?
They can walk by your house, take a picture of it, publish it on the internet - yes?
So it is the EASE that you can do this that some people object to? This is a true luddite argument. Technology has made something we can do anyway - easier. I am just struggling with the logic of the argument.
So it is the EASE that you can do this that some people object to? This is a true luddite argument. Technology has made something we can do anyway - easier. I am just struggling with the logic of the argument.
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
That bolded statement runs counter to your free speech idea, meaning upholding the Bill of Rights. That bolded statement was the philosophy that Bush and Cheney operated under after 9/11, roaming into constitution-shredding areas that had little to do with keeping me safe.
Free speech and privacy are two different rights in the Constitution. The internet has made it hard for people to remember the concept of "personal."
Should every computer come with a webcam that can't be turned off, so that people can start watching you at will whether you want to be watched or not?
CaptainWacky
I want to smell dark matter
No. Obviously.
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
The argument is accountability. Someone walking by and snapping a photo can be found and identified for the purpose of the legal process. You and I can anonymously surf Google Maps/Earth to gather the same information, but use it against someone without them being able to confront their accuser.
It's a tiny distinction, but can you at least see how it could snowball?
CaptainWacky
I want to smell dark matter
Both my sisters' houses are on it but not ours. 
headvoid
Can I have Ops?
This is an enjoyable discussion - and I dont have an answer. Eggs is, as ever, eloquent and has justifiable position. I just feel that this is a matter of principle. The only vague area for me is wether you could argue google are commercially benefiting from this service (Yes, by adverts etc.) so therefore should have the same principles of consent as for other broadcasters.
Compelling argument - difficult to counter
Tough titties - shouldn't have been doing it.
Compelling argument - difficult to counter
Tough titties - shouldn't have been doing it.
Fuddlemiff
Is this real life?
If they'd just blurred all the images of people to begin with, rather than expecting users to do their work for them then a lot of these issues could've been avoided.
CaptainWacky
I want to smell dark matter
I guess they had face recognition software to blur them but it didn't recognise some people as having human faces.