What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

google street maps

whisky

whisky

Boobie inspector
Funny they made such a big deal about their face blurring and car licence plate blurring technology, and the very first street I look at, at random has a woman without a blurred face and two cars with very visible licence plates.
 
I honestly think it's a bit weird that there is such hissyfit over "privacy issues" from Google street view. We're talking about public streets here not the inside of peoples bathrooms.

People will bitch just to bitch though.
 
Well the guy who got pictured coming out of a porn shop wasnt that happy, or the other guy pictured getting arrested, or the guy throwing up.

And thats just after one day.
 
Yeah, but anyone could have seen that happen if they had just walked down the public street at the time of the arrest/puking/porn shopping. What's next, banning EYES?
 
lol, I showed my mum our house on there and she said "Omg, it's like a bloody photo! This shouldn't be allowed!"

There you go, voice of the older generation. The photos are "like" a photo. She thinks people will use it to figure out which houses are worth breaking into (obviously caused by last week's attempted break in), but you'd have to be on there for hours just to see stuff you can see by walking down those roads. The navigation is pretty slow going.
 
CaptainWacky said:
Yeah, but anyone could have seen that happen if they had just walked down the public street at the time of the arrest/puking/porn shopping. What's next, banning EYES?
Click to expand...
The point is, you had to BE there to see it. Having it appear long-term on Google Street View is akin to having it published in the newspaper. It's unnecessarily embarrassing, and can be detrimental to careers or relationships. There IS such a thing as privacy on some level, even for people who buy porn or throw up outside their house.

The internet has rendered the idea that people should mind their own business extinct. Everything is everyone's business now. And that is wrong.

Fuddlemiff said:
lol, I showed my mum our house on there and she said "Omg, it's like a bloody photo! This shouldn't be allowed!"

There you go, voice of the older generation. The photos are "like" a photo. She thinks people will use it to figure out which houses are worth breaking into (obviously caused by last week's attempted break in), but you'd have to be on there for hours just to see stuff you can see by walking down those roads. The navigation is pretty slow going.
Click to expand...
Some people DO use it for that, or to stalk people, or to take away other people's constitutional rights as if they had planted a spycam there themselves in order to entrap. Just because it's a warped minority that does so doesn't absolve Google from their responsibility to follow the law.

I find the generally casual attitude in this thread toward the right to privacy disturbing. Truly.
 
I don't see a photo of my street as a violation of privacy.

Which people are using it to stalk? Wouldn't these people be stalking anyway?
 
How could you use it to stalk anybody? You'd have to already know where they lived and even then you'd only find an image which is months old and doesn't give any particularly useful info.

I don't have any worries about privacy, though I do wonder what the point is, or what Google thinks the point is. In the same way that it's not exceptionally helpful for people who are up to no good, it's not that useful for people who are just inquisitive. Aside from being able to figure out what places look like ahead of me visiting them, it's no more than a curiosity.
 
Privacy is obviously important. I just don't see that there is much of a case to make that Google Street View is jeapordizing it. They blur peoples faces on it and while it may not be 100% accurate it's better than nothing.

Taking pictures of public roads and streets that anybody can go to at any time doesn't strike me as that dangerous an issue.

As for it facilitating crime. I don't see that either. Google Earth itself was much more useful in that department.

As long as the Paparazzi are legally able to stick cameras up girls skirts and then print the results I think it's a weak case.
 
Actual paparazzi go after public figures, who have a different set of laws written for them. They forfeit certain rights to (or degrees of) privacy when they appear in public places. But they can still call the cops if someone is taking pictures of them inside their property from the street.

Can you find out someone's license plate by calling DMV? No. You'd have to walk by a person's house to get it. Being able to gather that information so easily, sitting on your ass from miles away, is different, and enters a gray ethical/legal area IMO.

It's one thing to pay for an online background check to get someone's information that you couldn't obtain through personal contact. It's another to get it for free through the most widely-used search engine in the world.

Maybe the letter of the law isn't on my side, but that's partly because legislators still don't undertand the internet yet, or how existing laws do/should apply to it. Or at least, be amended to cover it.

It just shouldn't be this easy.
 
But licence plates are blurred in it.

I get what you're saying and I don't entirely disagree. I just think it isn't as big a privacy breach as people are making out.
 
If Google can't guarantee 100% coverage of faces/plates/etc or be held criminally accountable for its lapses without hiding behind a long legal disclaimer, they shouldn't be allowed to administer this information.

They aren't a government organization. They get to hide behind their lawyers and the flexibility of corporate law, Remedies against them are probably reduced to civil suits, which they can win by dragging out until the plaintiff gives up or goes broke trying.
 
Like I said, the very first image I looked at had two unblurred licence plates in full, and one unblurred face.
 
I'm more on the eggs side of this argument, no yolk.

I agree that it would be helpful for planning crimes, when you're planning to rob / assault a building it's very important to know where the doors are located, and on Street View you can even tell what kind of material a door is made of (significant b/c different kinds of doors and hinges require different tools for breaching).

Mark my words: sooner or later, someone's going to rob a bank or pull another large-ish crime and Street View will have been part of it. Not the main part, but the part that like helps someone figure out WHICH bank in a city is going to be easiest to hit.
 
And therein lies my problem with the whole argument really. First of all any self respecting criminal mastermind will scout the place in person beforehand. Street View isn't live and the images can be months and months old. Besides someone who is hell bent on pulling off a major crime isn't going to be swayed by whether he can see the place he wants to attack/rob on Google or not.

And as I said before Google Earth is a much more useful piece of software for criminals/terrorists to use than the Street View feature but it's also a fantastic piece of software that shows our planet and I hope we can agree that we shouldn't ban pictures of our Earth from space because we all live down here.


But my real problem is that it seems like we should somehow be protected from information by laws because it may be dangerous to our health in some way. I cannot agree with that position.
 
Well I will point out that Americans are a lot more leery of this kind of thing than folks in other countries. People over here would not tolerate the cameras everywhere like in London, and are somewhat nervous that if we get used to things like this, then sooner or later someone will want to expand the idea into live cameras or something.

It's the slippery slope, not the eight-month-old shot of my car in the driveway.
 
I think the whole argument here seems a bit ridiculous. Specifically for the person who said it was alright, or better to be able to pay to get information on someone but not get it for free. So its ok to get information if you can afford it?

Also I agree with the argument over general information. Odds are if you are going to rob a place its going to be near where you live for the most part and google maps will not be the deciding factor. You will end up casing the joint per say in person. No one is going to rob a place based off of old photographs.

Google maps, streetview, and earth are merely tools. For instance I used streetview to see what my old neighborhood looked like where i grew up.

I don't really see the big deal here.

As for the license plates and people. If these people would normally come out of there homes or park there cars in the same place daily anyone could easily get the information by driving by there, or having a friend go by there. General information is easily obtained, this is much adeu about nothing.
 
Its a pity there is no way of integrating the google street maps with counterstike, so you could kill people on multiplayer in the streets of london
 
AAHHHH THERE'S A PICTURE OF MY ROAD ON GOOGLE OMG OMG OMG WHAT HAPPENED TO PRIVACY I COULD B E STALKED??!! FUCKKKINHHB??!?!!!


*uploads 20 photos of self being sick onto Facebook where they can be viewed by anyone*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top