Your House Is About To Be Photographed

An anonymous reader writes "Photographers from a Canadian company are going house to house, shooting pictures of every house in America, in hopes of building a giant database that can be sold to banks, insurance companies, and appraisal firms. While this activity is legal (as long as the photographers don't trespass on private property to get their shots), there are obviously concerns about security and privacy. Considering that an individual can be detained and questioned by the FBI for photographing a bridge in this country, why should this Canadian company get a free pass? Tinfoil hat aside, something seems very, very fishy here." From the Arizona Star article about the photographing of Tucson: "'The [handout given to people who complain] made it sound like they're doing it for law enforcement, when in reality they're doing it for sales and marketing,' said [a City Council aide], who received several calls about the company."

Comments

Assuming they follow the rules

[Slightly Askew]

Very little of my house is visible from public access. However, driving a hundred yards or so down my driveway will offer you a nice, clean picture. The first time I see photos of my house which I know had to have been taken from my private property, can I have their asses thrown in jail for trespassing?

Already been done

[saddino]

Ever hear of Zillow, the real estate "estimator"? They already have detailed pictures of homes in many major U.S. cities, from four different angles (taken by plane, natch). These aerial shots, of course, blow sat images away when it comes to level of detail.

Re:Already been done

[segfaultcoredump]

We (local county government) use a company called Pictometry (www.pictometry.com) that sells us oblique images from 4 different angles with 6" or better resolution (satellite is often 1 meter at best). Basically, we can see any structure in our county from multiple angles. We can also compare them against time. (hey, when did this big deck show up, and where are the permits?)

As for those who think that having trees right up to the building is a good idea to block the camera, lets just hope that you dont have a forest fire anytime soon. In my neck of the woods, having trees right up to your house is a very bad idea since the threat of a forest fire is so high (same in parts of california where you often see the million dollar homes go up in smoke since somebody though that close in trees were "pretty"). Insurance companies are starting to catch on, bumping rates up for folks who refuse to clear out the stuff from around their house.

More slashdot trolling

[benzapp]

New York City did this in the 1920's, and still does it to this day. Several private firms also do this.

Anyone ever hear of propertyshark.com?.

Yeah, pictures of every building in Manhattan, and much of prime Brooklyn. They also have the tax photos from the 1970's.

It can and does happen, but isn't supposed to

[93 Escort Wagon]

A couple years ago in Seattle we had a photographer accosted by police because he was photographing a railroad bridge - they told him he needed permits etc. from the city and from Homeland Security or the FBI. When someone actually bothered to check with both federal agencies, their replies basically amounted to "no, that's silly".

What it sounds like (to me anyway) is a number of local agencies get overly zealous at times. I suspect part of the problem is there hasn't been much, if any, guidance provided to local law enforcement from the feds. Another part of the problem is these people, from the feds on down, seem to be flying the security ship by the seat of their pants, and worrying about what's actually legal/illegal later - the old "Shoot 'em all, and let God sort 'em out" philosophy.

Re:impossible

[Daemonstar]

And what about bad neighborhoods and gang areas? Are they really going to go walking around there with cameras? If they're driving around even, that'll get noticed, too. I'm not sure people who run the known drug houses will be very welcoming of cameras or strange vehicles combing their territories.

Re:That reminds me

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a light display that is always on?

The Eiffel Tower has a copyrighted light display on it, and commercial uses of night photographs are prohibited because of this.

So, just throw up a few Christmas light bulbs in a small display covering nearly all the house (ie. a sparse display), and you should also have an actionable claim if they photograph it for their use.

Don't know where it came first...

[Fulkkari]

Don't know where it came first, but here in Finland a company called Igglo photographed every house here a couple of years ago. There are now photos of every building online. And I have to admit, that if your buying or renting something it sure is a very nice service. But I understand the privacy issues. There was some protest over here especially about photographic single-family houses. And I actually saw these guys photographing the house I live in. My first impression about them was to call the police. Kind of funny later on when I figured who they were.

Re:How is this useful in any way?

[susano_otter]

Real estate agents already pay for a small army of photographers to go criss-crossing the country. It's almost a career for many people. I used to date a guy whose job was exactly this, to go take pictures of houses.

The only thing going on here is what always goes on in commerce: somebody sees an opportunity to profit from specialization. Instead of having each real estate agent hire their own photographer, why not specialize in real estate photography, build a catalog of photos, and sell it to real estate agents for much cheaper than it would cost to maintain their own photographer on their own payroll?

Whether or not this work can really scale in this way remains to be seen. That's why entrepeneurs are considered risk-takers. I wish these guys the best of luck, and hope that the paranoid asshats are all asleep or out to lunch when the photographers arrive.

Enforcement != laws

[drewzhrodague]

Find a law on the books that says I can be forced to redact a picture that I take of a building clearly visible from a public place.

Hi. That's what I thought. I like to take pictures of architecture. Especially run-down old buildings right next to fancy new buildings. So, one day, I left with a friend of mine. Left my house, mind you, and went for a stroll around my own goddam neighborhood. A couple of blocks away, I was taking pictures of the Brew House, and the local evil hospital, when a security guard came out and said that we couldn't take pictures of the hospital. "We weren't taking pictures of the hospital," I told him. He said we couldn't take pictures anywhere near here, and told us that it was a security violation, and that he'd call the cops. He got real close to me. We left quickly.

Later that day, I found that there was no ordinance, law, rule, or anything that would prevent me from taking a picture of the Brew House, hospital, or even the security guard.

I live in Pittsburgh. This is fucked up right here.

Re:Enforcement != laws

[Kymermosst]

Why the hell didn't you stand up for yourself to a friggin' rent-a-cop?

Let him call the real police. Unless the cops tell you you can take the picture and cite the actual statute by number that tells you why not, then you can take the bloody picture.

If people like you constantly give in to this kind of treatment, it only empowers them. Get some backbone.

Re:Enforcement != laws

[JoeD]

They can call the cops and detain you under suspicion of shoplifting. But if they're wrong, they open themselves up to lawsuits. False arrest, defamation of character, etc. So they generally don't do anything.

I got into it about this with a security guard at CompUSA once after he followed me to my car and wrote down my license plate number. Needless to say, this was the last time I shopped at CompUSA.

Re:Enforcement != laws

[cayenne8]

"I don't take that kind of crap from rent-a-cops. They aren't peace officers. They have no more authority to tell me what to do then you would."

Be a little careful there....many places in fact use real off duty cops as their rent-a-cops. I know way back in the day when I was in school, and selling clothes at Dillard's...the plain cloths store cops were ALL real life LRPD. I was talking to one of them one slow night, and he explained the different guns he carried. The in-store gun with bullets that wouldn't go through the person...and the outdoor gun where if he had to shoot through a car...it would penetrate...etc.

And in some/many jurisdictions if I understand it...a cop really is never 'off' duty...so, even if working as a rent-a-cop...he has the exact same authority as if he were on direct police duty.

Re:Enforcement != laws

[ezratrumpet]

I worked as a security guard for a while, back in college.

A huge part of the training emphasizes that the security officer's rights are no different than anyone else. "Citizen's arrest" is a real law.

That said....the most important thing I ever did as a security guard was call an ambulance for someone who was ill. The whole job was a lot of sitting in an elevated box in the parking lot, waving at the people on shift change, pointing the truckers to the loading docks, and lots of reading.

I know of no employer who would seriously expect security guards to run off photographers. For the occasional event that we needed "real cops," the company hired them, sidearm and all.

I have a friend in county law enforcement who works private security as a second full-time job, making much more than he makes for the county. The paradox? He can't quit the county because he couldn't keep his private security job.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:That reminds me

[cayenne8]

"The Flat Iron building in New York City happens to be one of the more famous ones..."

Interesting. I'd never heard of the flatiron building before...did a little googling and found pictures of it. Interesting little wedge shaped bldg.

Could you yourself not call a real cop to report the rent-a-cop for harrassing you (if you weren't ON their propery)?

I say personal information = personal property

[Travoltus]

What would people do with this information that is so sinister? How about simple invasion of privacy, or even home invaders using the info to case your house and cut off avenues of escape, etc., all with the convenience of sitting at their computers?

I have another idea.

Instead of allowing any personal information to become public property, why not treat personal information as personal property? Only the Government can have it for free. Everyone else already profits from using your personal information, why not make it your private property to determine how it is used and how much they must pay you?

Why shouldn't a marketer have to pay you to use your house photo or your name and home address, etc.? They profit from it, don't they? Private investigator houses like choicepoint.com profit from you by digitally talking about you to employers, etc.

These people profit by sharing "public information" about your personal details. There is a major incongruity there. Why should they be able to profit and you can't?

I say expand copyright law to include your right to control how your personal information is distributed. Call it a personal information DMCA.

Local government beat them to it

[644bd346996]

My county government already does this. Photos from the road are included on the web page for each property in the online database. Anybody can access the county site and find out the size, tax value, date of last zale, zoning info, etc. The database is searchable by name or address. There is no need for a corporation to sell this info when it is already a matter of public record.