Slashdot Mirror


Windows Live and Privacy

An anonymous reader writes "Today as we were biking around our neighborhood in a small city we saw a strange vehicle slowly driving around. It appeared to be an SUV, bristling with cameras mounted on the roof, and pointing just about every possible direction. The first time we saw it, all we could see was that it had a sign on the side, something about Windows. The second time we saw it, we stared at it so hard that the driver stopped and we had a chance to ask him what it was all about. He said he was driving around, filming streets, and that there were people doing this all over the world, and getting data from the air too. It was going to be available on the Web. I asked him if this was Microsoft's answer to Google Earth, and he indicated that it was. There seems to be very little about this on the Web, and I found no mention of Microsoft's collection of this sort of detailed street level data. The Windows site appears to be http://preview.local.live.com/, although since I use a Mac it didn't work properly. I'm not sure I want my neighborhood viewable on the Web from ground level. And are they going to edit all the people out? I don't see how they could."

74 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. OH SNAP!!! It's the Vista Police.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    quick....uninstall...UNINSTALL!!!

    1. Re:OH SNAP!!! It's the Vista Police.... by Reaperducer · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I go to Home Depot and get a blue screen door, will the Windows police think my house has crashed and go home?

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    2. Re:OH SNAP!!! It's the Vista Police.... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but they will format and reinstall. Your house will look exactly the same as it did the day you moved in. And that included that ugly wallpaper the previous owners had in the living room and the pile of garbage that took all week to clean up in the basement. The stuff you brought in however will all be lost.

  2. Why not? by xyankee · · Score: 3, Funny

    "And are they going to edit all the people out? I don't see how they could." Why couldn't they? It's amazing the things they can do with computers these days, you know...

    1. Re:Why not? by dknj · · Score: 4, Informative

      a9 maps used to do this. Interestingly enough, a9 maps no longer exists. Though now they appear to be in bed with Live

    2. Re:Why not? by Aokubidaikon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Easy. Just take several shots of the same position say 20 seconds apart. Then let graphic software spot the differences between the shots. The differences which occur less are usually people and moving vehicles which can then be replaced by pieces of background from other shots.

    3. Re:Why not? by slashbob22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right, that could solve the problem quite easily. However, consider the original photos from each angle, not only could these photo's be distributed out of the public's eye, they could be used to create 3D models of the people in the photos. Not saying they are going to but when the data exists, someone will always want to find new ways of using it.

      --
      Proof by very large bribes. QED.
    4. Re:Why not? by geobeck · · Score: 4, Funny

      "And are they going to edit all the people out? I don't see how they could." Why couldn't they? It's amazing the things they can do with computers these days, you know...

      They won't edit them out completely; they'll just replace them with better-looking people. How else are they going to compete with GE?

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    5. Re:Why not? by arifirefox · · Score: 2, Funny

      if that's the case then slashdotters will have nothing to fear! ;)

      --
      Firefox Power http://firefoxpower.blogspot.com/
    6. Re:Why not? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Funny
      they could be used to create 3D models of the people in the photos. Not saying they are going to but when the data exists, someone will always want to find new ways of using it.
      psst.. over here. I got some mods for you GTA games. Now you can beat up real prostitutes and cops. ;~)
  3. This is old news... kind of by El+Lobo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yes, this has been going on for some months now. You don't see too much talking about this because:

    1) This is a project in MS lab that has been kind of limited

    2) People don't like to talk about MS making things better

    3) Soon yuu will see Google adding this feature as well. THEN, you will read about this and average Joe will tell you how Google innovates and MS catchs up [bg]

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:This is old news... kind of by Cycloid+Torus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stupid me...(sound of hand slapping forehead)... when I saw them, I thought it was maybe the FBI in disguise, you know, tracking terrorists or something... stupid me.

      --
      Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
    2. Re:This is old news... kind of by crush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was strong already done by a9.com and integrated with Yahoo! maps briefly. The test site is no longer live. So, no innovation on behalf of either Microsoft or Google if they start doing it now.

    3. Re:This is old news... kind of by limber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Toronto there is a google maps mashup of a similar project, where someone has driven around taking pictures from a truck.

      http://toronto.virtualcity.ca/

    4. Re:This is old news... kind of by crush · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is what it used to look like. It was pretty awesome.

    5. Re:This is old news... kind of by illegalcortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, yes, wouldn't that be the definition of innovation? Otherwise, don't we just call it implementation?

      The Amazon thing was fairly public. I read about it on slashdot, and it's what I thought the submitter was actually talking about.

    6. Re:This is old news... kind of by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Oh, so to make an innovative program based on a new concept, the people producing that program must have also been the first people ever to think of that idea?

      What's innovative about the Microsoft implementation, above and beyond what we'd seen like 2 years ago? The absurd marquee Microsoft put around the view?

      Microsoft might very well deliver a nice implementation, but there is nothing innovative about it (unless there's some bit that we haven't heard about).

      Sidetopic: Microsoft Research is grossly overrated. The amount of "they have all the best {X}!" and "their budget is huge!" talk is nowhere near justified in the actual deliverables of this division.
  4. Agreement? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    They don't need to edit anyone out. Just check your Windows EULA - it's in there right after the section concerning rights to your immortal soul.

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Agreement? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly the site worked well in firefox 2.0 on Linux

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  5. Driving directions by baffled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It could be useful to see a picture of all the turns when getting directions.

    1. Re:Driving directions by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you require a picture of all the available turns, then may I recommend looking through the glass area, which is carefully placed at the front of your cabin area in all our recent vehicles? This also has the value-added features of showing you where other vehicles and pedestrians are in real time, and of showing the junction layout in use today and not five years ago, both of which may assist your navigation. :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  6. Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by jfengel · · Score: 5, Funny

    The government doesn't want you to know this, but here's the secret:

    When you're outside... people can see you.

  7. You're in public == you have no privacy by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cry me a river dude, what makes you think you have the right not to be photographed in public? What makes you think you have the right to tell people they can't photograph your neighbourhood? This is a non-issue, and street level photography tied to satellite appears to be very useful. I have often looked up places I'm intending to go on Google Earth to get an idea of the geography of the location, now I can use street level photography to get some landmarks too. I'm surprised it hasn't been done already and just hope that Microsoft will be collecting data outside the US too.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:You're in public == you have no privacy by grand_it · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm surprised it hasn't been done already

      It _has_ been done already, and dismissed. Check out this story about an ideantical Amazon's A9 Maps feature.

    2. Re:You're in public == you have no privacy by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course /everybody/ has the right /not/ to be photographed in public (or private) without consenting to it. Look it up in your country's civil law (unless you are from North Korea or so).

      And of course you are dead wrong. Otherwise no one could take a picture in public without getting releases from everyone that might be in the frame. Now, using someone's image for profit -- that's a different kettle o' fish.

      But being in public means being in PUBLIC. You have no expectation of privacy. Whoa, I can even SEE YOU in public, and TELL ANYONE about it! Including your wife that you were with another woman! If you don't like it, wear a hood.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:You're in public == you have no privacy by blowdart · · Score: 2, Informative

      Model releases are different, as the model is the main focus of the photo. In the US and the UK members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. This is the key different, model releases come into play for studio shots. Basically, in public, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes. See ThePhotographersRight.pdf for more details of the US situation; photoattorney.com has more of the same. You can find an overview of Australian law here

      Finally the NYTimes covered a case where the subject of a photo in public sued because the photographer use it in an exhibit and was making money. The suit sought an injunction to halt sales and publication of the photograph, as well as $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages and was brought under the NY privacy laws. It failed because the photo was consider art.

    4. Re:You're in public == you have no privacy by daff2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And of course you are dead wrong. Otherwise no one could take a picture in public without getting releases from everyone that might be in the frame.

      I am wrong in that a person's consent is needed to photograph her. It's not.

      What is needed is the person's expressed consent to do anything with that photograph that would in any way involve "the public". It's in your countries copyright law (assuming you're from somewhere in the US or Europe, or many other democratic countries), and generally called "the right to your own picture" or some such. Look it up. 78 in my country's code (Austria).

      Now, using someone's image for profit -- that's a different kettle o' fish.

      As long as you keep the photographs you made of people without asking their permission to do anything with them under your bed you're fine. Anything else, be it for someone's profit or not, would be unlawful.

      Being in public does, in democratic countries, not mean you give up all your personal rights. Far from it.

      --
      And which parallel universe did you crawl out of?
    5. Re:You're in public == you have no privacy by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is this kind of thing fair?

      No, it's not fair. But then again, life isn't fair either.

      "Fair" is the enemy of "free". To make things fair you must make other things unfree. That means bigger government and more laws. The purpose of government is to protect your life, liberty and property, not to protect you from the embarassment of being photographed in your pink boxers.

      The power to prevent people from photographing your underwear, is the same power that can prevent paparazzi from photographing Britney's cooch. Is that the kind of power you want to give the government?

      It would be nice if things were fair, but it's not the reality we live in, no matter how much you pretend to perceive it otherwise.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:You're in public == you have no privacy by fosterNutrition · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say ending up on the front page of digg or Fark or whatever is pretty unpleasant, but I didn't see too much of an uproar when the Star Wars Kid was put in the same spot. He was, after all, in more of a private situation than the street. And he is of course not the only one, just the first one that popped into my head. Basically, I agree with you that it is unpleasant, but this kind of thing has been going on for ages without any comment - why is it heinous when a map is attached?

    7. Re:You're in public == you have no privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe Austria's laws are different but as a long time pro and semi pro photographer working across Australia, New Zealand and Japan I don't have to get consent unless I'm selling that photo containing your for the express purpose of selling your image for commercial gain.
      If I took images of people riding a ferris wheel at a fair and _sold_ them to a news paper for for gain for them to include in a news article about that fair then I would not need to get consent from the people riding the ferris wheel.
      If I included that image in my portfolio for personal promotion of my business (but did not sell that image) I would not have to get consent so long as it is not displayed to the general public ie I could, within my private business address show it to interested customers as an example of my skills as I'm not seeking to profit from YOUR image rather it's just a generic image demonstrating the ability of being able to take a successful shot under those generic conditions)
      If I included a image that had your likeness but that likeness was incidental to the main focus of the image (the fair) I could publish that in a book that was to be sold for commercial gain.
      If I took a photo of you and exhibited it in a gallery as a work of art I could do that without your consent. I can also sell that image for commercial gain, you could take legal action (as is some times done by celebrities) but if the court decides the primary purpose of the image is as an artistic work rather than specifically an image of that specific person then I could continue to sell that image for commercial gain.
      BUT.... BUT if I took a portraiture image of you as the subject (non incidental) of the image and published that in a book for commercial gain and the book was not of "historical" or "newsworthy" content nor deemed to be primarily published for its "artistic" merit I would be required to get a signed consent form.

    8. Re:You're in public == you have no privacy by daff2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't speak to other country's laws, but aparently YOU can't speak to the US's.

      Right; I assumed most western countries had compatible copyright laws when it comes to individuals (not speaking about copy protection, DRM and other such things). I can, of course, only speak for my country (Austria).

      Are they recognizable by most people: if not, then you're pretty much in the clear

      That's right, that's the basis for all of it. As long as you can't be clearly identified it's not "your picture" and your cannot claim the right to your own picture. Meaning as soon as you can be identified it is a picture of you, to which only you have the copyright.

      2. Are they a focal point of the photograph, or just incidental? If they're just incidental, you're pretty much in the clear (e.g. if you take a picture of a beach, some random dude who happens to be in the photograph usually can't do anything)

      I don't think that's true. If that dude can be clearly identified he has the right to that picture and you are not allowed to do anything with it without his consent.

      3. Even if you don't pass the first two points, there's still a fairly wide variety of things that you can do with photos. For instance, if they are being used for news purposes, you can't do anything. If they're being used in an art exhibit, you probably can't do anything.

      Someone putting your picture in an exhibition without you having agreed to that is clearly unlawful. It's the same with news reports. Anecdotal evidence, backed up by the code of law: Just this summer my girlfriend had a photo exhibition and they needed the written permission from every person photographed to be able to use their picture.

      Our law is pretty clear on those matters, the only exception made is when your picture is needed for administrative, court procedures and the like.

      Can't really believe it to be much different in the US. But I may be wrong.

      --
      And which parallel universe did you crawl out of?
  8. Woe is me ! by jfclavette · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was captured at some undisclosed moment by a camera. Someone who looks for me very hard might be able to see that I was in a public area 10 days ago even tough there's no way to search for anyone, very unlikely that they would recognize me, and I could always hide from the truck if I'm really paranoid. A stalker will stalk you. Not use this.

  9. You don't want what? by Score+Whore · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm not sure I want my neighborhood viewable on the Web from ground level. And are they going to edit all the people out? I don't see how they could.


    I would suggest then that you don't go out in public. And maybe you should buy up all the land around your neighborhood and make it private. Or maybe you could just wait for Google to show up and do the same thing, then you'd feel ok about it and think about how empowering it will be for you to be able to browse down to "virtual peeping tom" and see what's going on in your house when you're not around.

    (BTW people have this same complaint about Google groups: the posted to usenet before the advent of the pervasive web and the idea that some corporation would come along and violate the usual standards of post expiration was abhorrent. But because it's Google and they won't Do No Evil(*), that's ok. Ask any slashdotter.)

    * - For some values of evil that are of a nuisance to Google executive and Google's profits.
  10. Re:lovely by SeanMon · · Score: 3, Informative

    If a structure is visible from a public way, it is legal to photograph it and publish it; it is not a copyright violation. Exceptions are made, of course, for certain government areas, most notably Area 51.

    --
    "Scud Storm!" -- Jeremy of PurePwnage.com
  11. Easy to do... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And are they going to edit all the people out? I don't see how they could.

    That kind of work is exactly what the 3rd-world "IT" shops excel at. It is a very simple task to describe, and very simple to determine if the work is done correctly. But it is very hard for a computer to do it completely automatically.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  12. this is not nefarious by astrashe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked for a company that photographed many buildings on the north side of chicago. We used it so that we could pull up photos of apartment buildings when condos went up for sale -- we could put ads online and in print without having to send a photographer out for a new photo.

    It's been years since I looked at it, but I used to use a web site that would show you pictures of buildings in paris -- I think it was a yellow pages type site. I had a reservation in a hotel, and used the web site to find out what my hotel looked like, both so I could decide about whether or not to stay there, and also so I'd be able to recognize it when I was walking through the streets. You could look at any specific building in town, and move up and down the street to see what was around it.

    I'm inclined to agree with the person who pointed out that people can see things that are outside anyway. At least this takes that public information and puts it into a usable form. If they want to put trucks in the street to take these photos, and if they want to put the fruit of that labor up on the web, more power to them.

    I just hope that their web app works with firefox and linux.

  13. Editing people out: trivial by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Long exposures (>60 seconds) will remove most moving objects (cars, trucks, people).

    Or with computers, a series of short digital exposures which only keep the content "common" between the frames (moving objects will be in different parts of subsequent frames).

    1. Re:Editing people out: trivial by Cow+Jones · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is even a commercial package called Tourist Remover which uses multiple images of the same location to compose a result without artifacts from moving objects.

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    2. Re:Editing people out: trivial by 3mpire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah that van should totally have sat stationary in the middle of traffic for sixty seconds every two or three blocks. that's _totally_ trivial.

  14. Take my advice... by gooman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stay inside.

    --
    "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    1. Re:Take my advice... by monoqlith · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're preaching to the choir, my friend. Preaching to the choir.

  15. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

    was a time when only people who were near you could talk to you too. isn't modern technology great?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  16. Windows live sightseeing and pr0n by thc69 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, when do sightseeing blogs start to pop up, pointing out the rare frame where somebody is caught sunbathing nude?

    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
  17. Re:Wow by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yup, at first I thought satellite imagery would be useless too. Now I use it to imagine what it will look like when I get there so I'll know that I've arrived. Photos from the ground would be all the better.

  18. There could be a problem here... by thewils · · Score: 5, Funny

    Say honey, how come Dave's truck is parked in our driveway?

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  19. As for the news summary by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Windows site appears to be http://preview.local.live.com/, although since I use a Mac it didn't work properly. I'm not sure I want my neighborhood viewable on the Web from ground level. And are they going to edit all the people out? I don't see how they could

    Well, it works in Firefox, so chances are it works on a Mac after all, just not on Safari, if that was the one you had problems with.
    And yes, the people captured seem to actually be left in.
    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  20. Not exactly new by djupedal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The State of California, for one, has been filming at street level for the last decade. Shots are used for court cases, reconstruction of roads when wiped out by mudslide, etc. What...you've never taken a photo in your neighborhood and posted it on the 'net?

    The comment about it happening around the world is most likely crap... MS is already in enough trouble without sticking their neck in yet another noose.

  21. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by rvw · · Score: 2, Funny
    the the people near you you

    So do you suffer from Repetitive Brain Injury or what?

  22. That's not all! by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you go to google maps, and choose the satellite view, and go to my road, you can totally see my car in my driveway!!!

    I mean, how dare they?! Taking a photo of something in a public place*, right out in the open, then putting it on the web! I should sue!!!

    (* Note to pedants - no, my driveway isn't public, but it's open to the street and plainly visible from the pavement)

    Privacy concerns? Don't make me laugh. If they start sending people into private buildings with cameras, get back to me. In the meantime, kdawson, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for allowing such a spin to be put on this story.

  23. This was pitched to public safety long ago by kherr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I used to work in the public safety industry and at trade shows at least five years ago companies started showing up, hawking exactly this. The sales pitch was that they'd drive these vans around to take street-level photos of the city so the fire or police departments could have these views when dispatching to a call. Kind of silly use of the technology back then, not sure how successful the companies were.

    It seems maybe these companies might have sold Microsoft on the idea. Perhaps there were a whole bunch of data capture vans and no customer base. In the age of Google Earth and MSN Virtual Earth maybe spending money collecting these images are worthwhile. Or maybe just a waste of Microsoft's money.

  24. A bit too late to complain by DrXym · · Score: 2, Informative

    A3 (Amazon's search engine) has had street level photographs for a couple of years now. It is possible to enter an address by zip code and then see the picture of that address as it looks from the side of moving vehicle. It's interesting and useful that MS might also do it, but it isn't new or original.

  25. This is already around by twistah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Amazon had something very similiar in A9 Maps. You could view either side of most streets in major cities. They also had a program where you would sign up and, given the name of a business and a few pictures, pick one out that best represented the storefront. You could see where they were going with this.

    However, I just checked on it and it's discontinued. This is strange, considering the immense amount of effort this must have taken. I wonder if Microsoft didn't buy their data? If not, someone must have a use for it, as a Windows Live competitor if nothing else.

  26. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by mj_sklar · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, he probably just forgot a comma.

    "People, as in the people near you, you can also see."

    Note the comma after the first instance of 'you'.

    --
    The wii is the revolution, comrade! ...use the fucking wiimote or I'll gut you like a fish!!!
  27. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative
    When you're outside... people can see you.


    Yes, but except for certain special cases like news reporting on events of public interest, they can't take pictures in which you are recognizable and use them for commercial purposes without your express consent. Legal rights to "privacy" don't only apply to rights to prevent people from seeing you in the first instance.
  28. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by emcron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um, no. If you're on a public street, it's fair game. What you're thinking of only applies to using someone's likeness or celebrity without consent to imply that a specific person is endorsing a product. You don't think that every local news station in the US has to compensate people milling about in the background of their news video, do you? If you're on public property you can take whatever pictures you want and commercialize them in nearly any fashion.

  29. Full moon by Chayak · · Score: 2, Funny

    They better be careful what streets they drive down or they may get a shot of multiple full moons with little penguins painted on them...

  30. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by mr_matticus · · Score: 5, Informative

    The exceptions are bigger than you think. You're probably already photographed on the Internet on someone's birthday Flikr album from a restaurant, or maybe you're one of thousands of people filmed on open street scenes for motion pictures. They can use material which includes your likeness for any purpose, including commercial ones, so long as your likeness isn't part of that purpose.

    If I'm filming a tree lighting ceremony for the holidays and your face drifts into the frame, too bad for you. That video is still going in the film, because I have no idea who you are and your inclusion isn't even tangentially related to what I'm doing. Privacy laws only protect exploitation, not inclusion. In public, people and cameras can see you. If you don't like it, don't go out. Ever been on the big screen at a baseball game? Try complaining about that.

  31. They're still - but the vehicle still moves by Animaether · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, they're stills - but the vehicle, and thus the camera, is still on the move. You can deduce this from many locations such as highways where there are up to at least 8 consecutive shots that I've found where the cars in front are still in the next shot. Even if they did somehow manage to stand still on the highways, I doubt they would have gotten all the other traffic to cooperate ;)

    That said - another posted already pointed out that it could still be done. The question is: why on Earth would they? and: are they required to, by law? Answering the latter tends to answer the former when it comes to these matters.

  32. Motion Flow 3D Tracking by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would seem that beyond the fairly primitive display and interpolation of the software currently being presented, the real gold from all these photos would be to start running them through a motion flow algorithm and 3d tracking algorithm to start generating geometry.

    I think people are right in saying that this had somewhat limited applicable use, but the more raw data you have on an area, the more references you can feed into new technologies. Sure this data might not be useful now, but let's say Microsoft then proceeds to do a lidar scan of the entire city. Combined with this data, you have one more data set to use for comparison. Increase sample size, decrease margin of error.

    It's much like a web crawler, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Amazon are all in an arms race to know more about the world than anyone else, because the more you know, the more accurate you can be. I like the new 3d photo technology microsoft was showcasing earlier of I think the bassilica, start combining that with lidar and you have an automatic mapping/3d modelling application. The more photos you take, less likely a person will be in front of it.

  33. Re:lovely by fltsimbuff · · Score: 2, Funny

    I used Google Maps to plan a route the other day. It allowed me to find the easiest entry point through fencing around a "site", encountering the least amount of resistance. Additionally, it was much easier to find the perfect place to park my vehicle, to minimize exertion on return, and ensure a quick getaway.

    Once inside, I was able to use the detailed satellite imagery to find the items on my itinerary of highest value. I was pleasantly surprised to find that most of what I was after was outdoors, in the open. It also ensured a quick and safe exit when I was all through.

    As a result, this trip to the Zoo (what did you think I was talking about?) was a lot easier than it could have been without Google Maps.

    As far as nefarious uses of Google Maps and things like it? I just don't see it.

  34. Everyone Playing Catch Up to ... Pages Jaunes by twitter · · Score: 3, Informative

    The French Yellow Pages has had street level photos for at least eight years. Some people, it seems, make their tax dollars work.

    As for M$ doing anything useful, I'll believe it when I can see it with free software. Until then, I'll just imagine they bought someone out and made their stuff crappier, like Hotmail. Is there anything that M$ borgification has improved rather than extinguished?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  35. Are people really this out of touch with news? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are people really this out of touch with news?

    Microsoft started taking street and air shapshots of cities over a year ago, it was part of their demonstration even over a year ago.

    And now this Mac user is surprised? WTF. This isn't an 'answer' to Google BTW, MS was working on this technology before Google was even a glimmer in the eye of the geeks that created it. Go look up terra server, and when MS first put this up as a demonstration of how MS-SQL could easily handle terrabytes of data.

    As for the street and air level snapshots, these TOO are ALREADY in use. Microsoft 3D earth uses the 'textures' of the buildings in the 3D models they have of several major cities already.

    Additionally, the 'angle' view was introduced on MS Virtual Earth over a year ago, with multi-angle views of cities from airplane shots that complimented the satelitte images.

    Is everyone this out of touch with technology and news, and if so, are the editors of Slashdot becoming out of date old timers as well? No wonder people are shocked to find out that Windows doesn't run on a DOS architecture nor crash every 5 mins if this is their idea of breaking news.

    Talk about slow news day... OMFG.

  36. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by Assassin+bug · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some of the legal/cultural regulations regarding photos and video of others is also interesting. In East Africa it is expected that you pay anyone included in your shot at the time of the photo. For example, I have some great video of a very young Maasai boy leading a herd of about 150 goats across the scrubland of northern Tanzania. I guess my tripod (and the tall pale guy behind it) was pretty conspicuous because he headed straight towards me, seeing me from about 300 meters out. He approached me very curiously and politely, but he was also there to collect his payment. I twisted the viewscreen around on the videocam and we shared some moments smiling at the camera smiling back at us and gave him 5 USD and we parted ways. Even if they are not the focus of your composition you can get some pretty nasty looks from some otherwise cheery folks if you snap and run. However, it is difficult to show the diversity and richness of a Maasai market area without snapping a shot of a few hundred people and it's unwise to go around handing out money in such places.

  37. Re:Outdoors = no reasonable expectation of privacy by EvanED · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That being said, I think it's a gimmicky piece of crap, and honestly I can't foresee it being useful for anything Google Earth can't already do better.

    Really? Can Google Earth show you a picture of the neighborhood you're thinking about moving into? Can it give you a picture at each of the intersections along the route it finds from A to B?

  38. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by Reaperducer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live in a neighborhood where five or six major motion pictures are filmed each year (Batman Begins, The Weatherman, The Break Up, etc...). Whenever the movie crews are shooting on the street they put up big signs on the sidewalks telling people that if they walk through they may end up in the background of a film and if they don't want to be, they should walk the other way until filming is over. The signs seem pretty standardized, so it appears that this has passed muster with lawyers somewhere.

    --
    -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  39. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was going to say that you can't talk to people near you in public because they have those little buzzing transducers (the ones wired to iPods) up against their ears.

    Or, they're busy talking on their cellphone.

  40. just another example of technology by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A variant of moore's law applies here I think, where the amount of information available goes up at a geometric rate just like processor speed and memory requirements. Ten years ago we would have laughed at someone that said we could get 15ft resultion sat pictures of most anywhere in 10 seconds, but we have had that for what, four years now. What's next? In 20 years will I be getting calls from the local contractor advising me that I need my shingles replaced because they're starting to crack?

    Probably.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  41. I used to work for these guys. by Employee0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe what was seen is a van for http://www.facet-tech.com/ , their url should have been on the van also. I used to drive a van for them, they have a system of cameras and gps to help with city maps and signage. They recently did get a contract to do the imagery for the live and local thing that has been linked. They do collect wifi but it's just a raw count of ap's , they don't run kismet. As far as the speculation they're checking for pirated copies of Windows I don't believe it. But since it's already been said "EVERYBODY PANIC". Or just install Debian.

  42. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by bigjarom · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're on public property you can take whatever pictures you want This is correct. I worked as a private investigator a few years ago and the rule about surveillance was that you could film people regardless of where they were as long as you were on public property. For example, if they are inside their house you can film them or take pictures through their window, as long as they are visible from the street.
  43. Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

    Heh. Actually did visit the WTC. I most remember the rude bitch who served me at the cafeteria. We flew out a day later, arrived in London and the next morning the WTC fell down. I remember thinking "man, I hope the cafeteria was open."

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  44. Ok. by Perseid · · Score: 3, Funny

    So if I see a truck driving around taking pictures I will try to look as sexy as I can. So if you see the fat computer nerd trying to look sexy in the next beta of this thing - that was me.

  45. All dressed up, no place to... hey! by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I never understand people getting all upset about other people capturing light which happens to have bounced of their body in a public space.

    Evidently, you've not strolled around outside naked very much?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  46. Re:Wisconsin, personal images and profit. by mtz206 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And you think M$FT is building this for philanthropic purposes?

  47. Re:Why not? Why? by greenrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't use your image for commercial purposes without your permission

    Uh..... Won't this be used for commercial purposes? Are you saying Microsoft is some kind of charity? Or that posting images up with ads next to them isn't "commercial"?