tedster
msg:3410744 | 5:59 pm on Aug 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
It's been two months and there's no big brouhaha about this theoretical "privacy problem" that I've heard. Was it just a headline grab, a play to Google paranoia?
|
wruppert
msg:3411062 | 12:36 am on Aug 2, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Does anyone find these images to be actually useful in their daily lives? I use the satellite views and Microsoft's aerial views all of the time, but I find these street level views to be sort of dumb.
|
BillyS
msg:3411065 | 12:44 am on Aug 2, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I can envision a future use - National Security for one. But right now I think this is more of a plaything.
|
balam
msg:3416260 | 11:55 pm on Aug 7, 2007 (gmt 0) |
> there's no big brouhaha Came by to see if an L.A. Times article written today about this subject had been posted - it has [webmasterworld.com] - and thought I'd submit this theory... It hasn't caused much concern - excepting the privacy-aware crowd - thus far because the "boogeymen" of the story have been pretty much hypothetical. Now that several websites have popped-up that either direct you to or display screenshots of public urination, nudity & nose-picking as captured by Google, concern will mount. Another major factor that has limited concerns has been the limited geographic impact; "It's a San Francisco thing, I'm in the Mid-West, what do I care?" But now that the "service" is expanding in its geographic reach, there's a greater chance that someone will get peeved at the (perceived) privacy invasion. Anyone know why Amazon's A9 Maps failed? I heard there was limited support for the project internally and Amazon didn't have the financial balls to take on GYM's map offerings. But I have to wonder if a lack of public enthusiasm - beyond voyeurism - was a contributing factor (and will be for Street Views).
|
|
