| 10:49 am on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
There is a lot of talk about this over here, many countries dont like street view, also I think it was in London there a bugler had planed hes illigal activities for a few blocks with street view, he got about 100.000 £ I think it was.
Another thing, USA is always so quick to say "it concerns National security" HELLO you have 1 Company over there that knows more about every Person and have a VERY detailed view of whole USA, is that a good thing, hmm.
It can not be that Google just goes around and takes photo of everything without asking, yes a normal photograph also takes pictures out there, but not everything.
| 12:42 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Considering the way that UK police harras rail fans and people taking photos in the street as "terrorists" I do wonder what the official reaction to an update of StreetView would be.
| 3:48 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I hate street view. I hope you guys over there give google a hell of time when they try to get their pictures. It seems like us Americans are wimps when it comes to anything anymore, and say hehe look, a google map car - when we should run the thing off the road. You guys at least try protect yourselves and your privacy.
| 5:00 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I love Google street view. Used it several times to scout out an area before I visit, just to save time when I get there. Gives me an idea of what is nearby and what the neighborhood is like.
Anything a person can see from standing in the middle of the street does not violate anyones privacy in my opinion. Not sure why some people object.
| 6:34 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>>but not everything.
Yes indeed. As with most practices which effect people in a social way, they come down to the matter of degree.
| 6:57 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I donít think anybody objects to pictures. Tourists make photos all the time. Web sites utilize them in all shapes and forms. Itís when a company attempts to systematically garner a market in a way that invades many peopleís privacy and exposes us to potential wrongdoing that we object. In fact if the roles were reversed we might not like Yandex or Baidu traversing US towns and cities doing the same while arguing their constitutional right to do so. There is little doubt terrorists love Googleís capitalist behavior and exposure of the US. There's a time and place for everything but not necessarily now.
| 7:20 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I love street view, too. While searching for a new house, I used both Google Street View and Bing Birds-Eye View extensively. When I navigate on my Droid, as I reach my destination it pops up a picture of the building I'm looking for.
I do think they should have an easy mechanism by which an individual or property owner can request removal or updating. Imagine if your business property had fire damage, for example, when it was shot by Google. Every time someone viewed the address, they would see a burned-out hulk - a definite negative for business development.
| 7:26 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Who do you know who takes photos from nearly 8 feet up like the G image car does ..Most peoples walls around their properties are designed to keep out prying human eyes ..not humans on stilts !
You aren't allowed to construct new walls here over 2 meters high without planning permission from the equivalent of city hall ..most old walls were built when folks were smaller ..so this thing sees right over them ..same problem as in Japan ..
Plus our house is along a private road ..and like many hundreds of thousands of private roads in France and the rest of Europe it isn't marked as such ..And I dont see why we should have to periodically check on G to make sure that they haven't been down here ..Already the satellite pics they have of us show my truck outside and details of our property and garden ..Plus photos of the outsides of peoples houses here cannot be used for commercial gain without their written permission ..
| 7:35 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Anything a person can see from standing in the middle of the street does not violate anyones privacy in my opinion. Not sure why some people object. |
Because your definition of privacy isn't the same as others. I personally feel that a private company taking pictures of my house for profit - and when it's done on a wide scale, with no opt out, is a huge invasion of privacy.
As I noted in another thread, Google's streetview has a picture of my wife and her sister standing in front of my office - clearly identifiable. And my house has a picture of my ATV's and boat inside my open garage door. That 10 minute open garage door is now preserved for posterity for anyone to see. I find that invasive.
These aren't pictures of large public tourist attractions, that tourists are snapping for their own pleasure. These are en masse pictures of everyone's home on the contintent, and on a for profit basis. That makes it different.
If you came by and took a pic of my house, fine. Google's use, not fine at all - I'm incensed. And that doesn't mean I smell nice. Because I don't.
| 7:39 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Funny how the UK would be part of a complaint that had to do with cameras. Aren't they the most densely camera populated area on the planet?
I LOVE street view, especially how it works on "maps" on my iphone.
|warn people before it sends cameras out into cities to take pictures for its Street View maps |
That's a decent suggestion actually, I bet if they did that there would be all sorts of displays set up in people's front lawns. I have heard of people following the vehicle just so they can see themselves later.
In London, you don't have to warn people of cameras, they are already everywhere I think they expect to be caught on tape everywhere they go in public.
|As I noted in another thread, Google's streetview has a picture of my wife and her sister standing in front of my office - clearly identifiable. And my house has a picture of my ATV's and boat inside my open garage door. That 10 minute open garage door is now preserved for posterity for anyone to see. I find that invasive. |
Have you gone through the takedown procedure with them? I have heard it is an annoying process but you can have your garage and your wife's face obfuscated or removed.
The garage thing would bother me.
| 8:10 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Googleís idea of an opt-out is you have an 8 by 10 foot sign posted clearly for all to see that you donít want photos taken. If you take it down you opted-in. Also they would argue they didnít come on your property to take the pictures. Where thereís a buck to be made at somebody elseís expense its guaranteed Google will show up. Is Sergeyís home showing? Thatís where the money is.
| 8:22 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>>taking pictures of my house for profit
Interesting comment. It would interesting to challenge this in court not as a regulatory matter, but as a class-action suit that Google hadn't obtained property releases. I doubt it would work though
|Is permission needed to use the image of a trademarked building on a postcard or poster? That issue arose when a photographer sold images of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A federal court of appeals permitted the use of the trademarked building on posters and did not consider it to be trademark infringement. (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame v. Gentile, 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 1998).) |
A release is not needed to photograph a building or property visible from a public place. However, permission is needed to photograph and reproduce images of a building protected by copyright and not visible from a public place.
| 8:37 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I am pretty sure that it is law that if you are on public property then you can photograph anything within your line of sight, not including people when publishing for profit or advertisements.
I remember a case where a couple was filmed during an intimate moment inside their home by their neighbors standing on the sidewalk out front. When it came to light that the video existed the couple sued to have the tape destroyed or something and lost because the neighbors shot the video from the sidewalk and you could see into the home from there.
| 8:39 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|However, permission is needed to photograph and reproduce images of a building protected by copyright and not visible from a public place. |
Thats US law ..doesn't apply to the rest of us ..our laws apply to G when they are on our turf taking photos or otherwise ( btw ..to take a photo of my place ..unless it was by satellite you'd already have to be 200 yards onto private property minimum in any direction ..and to get even a shot of the gate ..you'd already have to have driven 100 yards along our private road ..and either way ..have to have a lens that shoots around corners ) ..trespassers with cameras will be dealt with ;)..then I'll phone the French cops :)
| 9:36 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Every single person should file a copyright on a pic of their home. If enough people recognized your house pic, you could get a trademark.... :)
| 10:31 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>>Thats US law
I'm pretty sure that very similar laws apply. Your case would be different, because they would have to be on private property in order to get the photo. That would typically call for a release.
Jon_King - case law will not support you there. You might be able to copyright the photo of your home, but you can't copyright your home as an architectural work unless it's something truly special.
Ditto for trademark. some buildings are trademarked (Sears Tower), but you won't get a trademark for your house in the US
| 11:38 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
can't I just post a robots.txt on my front gate? :)
| 11:45 pm on Feb 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
| 12:16 am on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
In the U.S., many cities already post public photos of homes (along with the names of homeowners, their tax bills, etc.) through their Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps. If you own real estate in the U.S., there is a good chance your home, street, and neighborhood are already online, and none of it is for profit.
Maybe Google thinks they can provide the same info without violating privacy?
As ergophobe pointed out:
|A release is not needed to photograph a building or property visible from a public place. However, permission is needed to photograph and reproduce images of a building protected by copyright and not visible from a public place. |
Most U.S. city and county roads are public, and if your house can be seen from the road, there probably isn't much we do about Streetview maps.
| 1:05 am on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I don't really mind someone taking a photo of my house but I damned well don't like that my partner is standing out front and our car in the driveway instead of the garage, all available to anyone on the 'net... in pretty good detail. I wish they could come by again on a day when my car is in the garage and no one is out front. Personally I think G Maps should have stuck to "main" roads like a "Main St", business areas, etc. But really, going down nearly every residential street taking photos every few seconds is intrusive. Google is big brother.
| 1:10 am on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I absolutely love street views. Whenever I'm driving to some place new or going to a business in an area that I'm not very familiar with, I use street views to familiarize myself with street level landmarks so that when I'm driving I can focus more on driving and less on finding where I'm going. I especially like using it before doing city driving (e.g. going to some place new in Boston).
I can see some point about the cameras being mounted too high and that maybe they should really be more at eye level (e.g. 6ft/2m) but beyond that my feeling is that if they are on public property people just need to get over it.
| 1:51 am on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
About a mile from here the Google car was out snapping and residents blocked his way out. Police ended up involved before he could drive on. There had been a kids party at one of the homes in the street and there where a large number of kids playing in the gardens when the G car went by. Not sure what the outcome was.
My personal opinion is rather negative about street view, its fun, but there are way to many bad points.
| 3:35 am on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I think one of the biggest beneficiaries of street views could be historians decades from now if enough of the photos were archived away somewhere. They are really great "candid" snapshots of everyday life, which some historian would find fascinating a hundred years from now.
I have read that Google is working on technology that will reliably blur people's faces as well as vehicle license plate numbers. This would address two of the biggest concerns about street views. Beyond that, I think the street views cars should just stick to public streets and not go down private private drives/roads.
| 6:15 am on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Not necessarily so many years from now. On 6 april 2009 my city, L'Aquila, was hit by a 6.3 Mw earthquake. Especially along one of the main streets, Via 20 Settembre, some buildings collapsed and there were dozens of victims. Thanks to Street View, which visited the area with their car a few months before, we can go back in time and see what is no more.
| 3:57 pm on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
In London, you don't have to warn people of cameras
But you do have to warn people not to photograph the cameras, that is illegal. Personally I like Street View, I have used it to check out places I want to visit to see if I can park the car nearby. However, as a keen amature photographer I expect the police to treat Google in exactly the same way as they treat private citizens and that is going to mean arresting Google execs if they instruct their drivers to photograph controlled areas. Remembering of course that it is illegal to know which areas are controlled under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
| 10:21 pm on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You make sound like London is becoming some Orwellian police state.
| 10:28 pm on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I just say George Orwell 1984
| 11:09 pm on Feb 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Point of information... Orwell wanted to title that book "1934" but his editors said no. Just an indication this kind of thing has been going on for a LONG time. :)
| 5:29 am on Feb 28, 2010 (gmt 0)|
European Union data privacy regulators ought to be more careful about the threats they make, taking pictures in public places is completely legal (but heavy handed warnings and veiled threats aren't).
| This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: 44 (  2 ) > > |