Forum Moderators: goodroi
For instance:
The search giant is already being sued by one US couple for breach of privacy after photos of their home appeared online, despite their street being clearly marked with a private road sign.Other highlights include a man entering an adult video store, two students sunbaking at Stanford University and a female revealing her black g-string as she gets in her pickup truck.
But Google Australia spokesman Rob Shilkin said Australians have nothing to fear about Street View.
[news.ninemsn.com.au...]
Of course google's response has been that there's nothing to worry about concerning privacy.
So I thought it was particularly entertaining that google declined to give their executives' addresses so a newspaper covering the story could photograph their homes. They stated "Providing those details would be completely inappropriate," Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt...
Doesn't the hypocrisy just drip from the page?
Google Exec's mantra: "Privacy for me, none for thee".
Google thinks it is perfectly acceptable to publicly display private homes of every day American's but when it comes to showing Google employee's homes -- its "completely inappropriate".
i am not comfortable how google commonly defaults to opt-out models but that is for a different thread.
especially as they are getting married and having children that they need to protect.
Are you serious?
i think any person that is worth a few billion dollars probably needs to consider their privacy and security. especially as they are getting married and having children that they need to protect.
Why are Google's employee privacy and security more important than anyone else's. My wife and children are precious to me as well, surely they count in your view?
yes, your family and my family is just as important as anyone else's. this thread is about google executives not being listed on google street view. some people might get confused and not realize that anyone can opt-out the same way google executives are. google is not reserving special treatment for themselves. all readers should clearly understand that they have the same privileges as google employees when it comes to street view.
let me also be very clear that as i stated earlier in this thread that i am uncomfortable with google commonly choosing opt-out instead of opt-in. that discussion is for a separate thread. this thread is about google executives and how street view handles their homes.
They're probably not worried about their privacy, but I know for a fact that the ultrawealthy G employees have been advised to diminsh the likelihood of kidnapping by keeping a low profile, and in a few cases hiring bodyguards.
some people might get confused and not realize that anyone can opt-out the same way google executives are. google is not reserving special treatment for themselves. all readers should clearly understand that they have the same privileges as google employees when it comes to street view.
No one from google notified me that they had taken a photo of my house and posted it for the world to see, and they certainly didn't notify me that I could opt out, so how could I, much less someone less internet saavy, "realize that anyone can opt-out the same way google executives are"?
Publishing an obscure web page with an opt out function does not absolve them of responsibility, not even close. If they were even remotely serious about it they could at least place a prominent link and explanation on the google search page. But again, this does not even come close to relating this info to the millions and millions of people who are not online.
Anyway...the article wasn't about google executives opting out of google street view. Here's the excerpt:
Google's picture-snapping cars have been cruising Australia's suburbs since late last year, with pictures of thousands of homes expected to be uploaded to the internet with Street View's launch.While Google has defended the project, the internet company baulked when The Weekend Australian requested the personal details and addresses of the group's key figures to allow the paper's photographers to take pictures of their homes. "Providing those details would be completely inappropriate," said Google spokesman Rob Shilkin.
The point is google is OK publishing photos of the homes of regular people for all the world to see, but says it's "completely inappropriate" to publish photos of the homes of the high and mighty google executives.
It just reeks of classism and double-standard. That's my point. I get so tired of hearing all the google corporate "don't be evil" BS and their arrogant and elitist ways, when the facts show otherwise.
It's like seeing those commercials from Exxon on TV saying how much they're doing to protect the environment. Whitewashing, greenwashing, image making, whatever you want to call it. In the end it's the same ole' corporate BS.
some people might get confused and not realize that anyone can opt-out the same way google executives are. google is not reserving special treatment for themselves. all readers should clearly understand that they have the same privileges as google employees when it comes to street view.
1) Googe Is reserving special treatment for themselves as their employee's residences were never published nor photographed for street view in the first place. We never had that opportunity.
2) Google employees can not opt out of Street View as they were purposely never included in it in the first place.
3) Yes, some people do seem confused by the issue.
There is no 'opt out'. You can report 'objectionable material' in Street View, however, currently there is no link to remove your private residence.
What constitutes 'objectionable material?
Straight from Google's own PR:
Each Street View imagery bubble contains a link to “Street View Help” where users can report objectionable images. Objectionable imagery includes nudity, certain types of locations (for example, domestic violence shelters) and clearly identifiable individuals, if those individuals request takedown.
5) Will Google remove your private residence if you request? The Google PR states that will only 'review' the request and not automatically remove the photos.
Q: Have you had a large number of requests to remove privately owned buildings and residences?A: We have received very few requests for removal, but those that we have received we are reviewing promptly.
6) If you wish I can provide you with a website which shows Google Street View capturing everything from clearly identifiable individuals, to people urinating in public, drug deals, police arrests, minors, etc.
Everyone of those individuals did not request that their photo be captured for public display and now have to "opt out" to remove it?
...The Weekend Australian requested the personal details and addresses of the group's key figures to allow the paper's photographers to take pictures of their homes. "Providing those details would be completely inappropriate," said Google spokesman Rob Shilkin.
Providing the personal details and addresses of business executives and their families, who are targets for kidnapping and other personal attacks would be inappropriate in my opinion. I don't recall any other Fortune 500 company providing the personal details and addresses of their executives.
Providing the personal details and addresses of business executives and their families, who are targets for kidnapping and other personal attacks would be inappropriate in my opinion.
I don't recall any other Fortune 500 company providing the personal details and addresses of their executives.
I guess double-standards, invasions of privacy, and classism doesn't bother you?
