Slashdot Mirror
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."
I have to put up my 10 meter wide 'FUCK YOU' banner.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
No more putting off mowing the lawn.
What seems "very, very fishy?"
From my understanding, this has always been legal. Where we live, the size, configuration, value and tax record of your house is public information. So what would people do with this information that is so sinister?
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
... to our forthcoming invasion. Do not be alarmed.
Actually we have invaded the US 47 times in the last 10 years, but nobody noticed.
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?
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
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.
And very appropriate. Oh my gosh, someone's going to take a picture of my house. Now what?!
If you've ever bought a house, you know that for months (or longer) thereafter, people come by and snap pictures of your house. Why? Because appraisers take pictures of your house as "comparable" for the appraisal of some other house in the area. It's completely legal and nothing new. When I got my appraisal, it too included pictures of other recently sold houses in the neighborhood. Once I was working in my garage and an appraisal guy came up and actually asked if he could take a picture. I said, sure, and would he like me to close the garage door so he could get a better picture. He thanked me and that was that.
Seriously, this is the height of "So what!?!?!?"
I fail to see why pictures taken in legal way (I'm not talking about trespassing or even breaking-in to take interior pictures) is useful in any way? What bank or real estate agent would gain from picture taken from the street? More information is currently readily available - most people post detailed pictures of interior and exterior when they sell houses, this information only needs to be archived and categorized to get better result than this project can hope to archive.
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.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I'm a proponent of strong privacy rights, but if they're just photographing the view of your house from the street, I fail to see how they're doing anything invasive of one's privacy, they're simply cataloging trivially publicly available information. Anyone can drive down the street and see the house. Presumably, on any given day, on most of these streets, hundreds or thousands of people drive down the street and see the house anyway.
Using something like a high-powered zoom lens to try to shoot pictures inside the house through the window, or trespassing on the property to better see the house, or driving a cherry picker down the street to take hard-to-get views over privacy fences and such would be different. But I don't see how the regular pedestrian view from the street can be considered "private." Presumably anybody with your address could get the same view by going there anytime. And to look it up in this company's database, presumably they've already got your address or could easily retrieve it from other sources. They're just changing the ease of access to this information, they aren't making any "private" information that wasn't previously accessible available, they're just changing the costs of accessing publicly available information.
If you care about people not obtaining information they can get from glancing at your house from the street, then you need a privacy fence or something to conceal that information.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
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.
#DeleteChrome
"Number 134?"
"Yeah"
"It's just a door with a number?"
"Yeah like the last 133 units we've shot dumbass"
*Click*
"Okay got it"
Namaste
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.
I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
I built a facade exterior house outside my actual house with a tinfoil lining. The pretense house has a different address on its mailbox and I use MAT (mailbox address translation) to forward all mail to my real house. I keep all the windows and doors on the proxy house closed. This combined with a good cinder block firewall keeps me safe and from broadcasting my real address TO THE WORLD!
"I pity the poor defenseless Canadians." Oh, don't worry about us. We'll be hiring local photographers. Rest assured, those are fellow Americans you'll be shooting, as per usual.
They use Google maps to do a mash-up. It's a very clever site.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
I demand the Cone of Silence!
That should play with their heads.
I don't know how they're doing this in practice, whether they're just sending people out with regular handheld digital cameras or what, but it would probably be possible to rig up a nondescript panel van with side-view cameras, and just drive up the street photographing everything on both sides. (Or, for better results, everything on the right side, and then drive up one side of the street, followed by the other.) If you had a very good GPS receiver in the van, you could geotag each photo, and then crop them as a batch later on, for each house or building on the street.
What would probably be even better would be to use a progressive-scan video camera for image capture, so that you have a continuous feed of images, and then you don't have to worry quite so much about having one house cut between two photos. (Alternately you could probably sew the images together into a continuous linear panorama, but that might give mixed results.)
You might still get shot at in some areas, but it would probably be a lot lower risk than just walking around.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Whom says that it can only be used in the objective case?
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
First of all the bit about them getting a free pass is just absurd, despite what the TSA does the idea of these precautions is to catch terrorists not make sure everyone is annoyed equally.
Secondly I think it is unfortunate that the distinction between privacy and anonymity is so often blurred. This technology does not infringe on your privacy, the front of your house is visible to any passerby and has undoubtedly been published in some picture on the web or a newspaper already. Nothing that was not previously visible to complete strangers has been revealed. All that has changed is that it is now easy for people to find that information and make use of it. In other words your anonymity has been reduced though your privacy has not been affected (they aren't always so clearly cut but here it is).
Now I find it pretty ironic that the same vocal slashdot lobby that is so strongly against any sort of free speech restriction or data lockdown technology seem to think that we can and should do something to stop the loss of (physical) anonymity. Frankly the two goals are fundamentally incompatible.
As it gets easier and easier for people to post information to the web they will do it. Today we have camera phones, tomorrow we will have glasses that record video, recognize faces and code geographic information into that data. Either you pass draconian laws that prevent people from posting the snapshots/movies online or that data will eventually be there, and sooner or later better search and geographic information will make it possible for search to organize it in ways that let people determine what city your in on a given day (face recognition on photos taken that day) and certainly they will be able to track down a picture of your house.
This sort of loss of anonymity is inevitable if we don't want to give up our freedom. It isn't all bad, after all this is the way people lived in small towns for most of history. But so long as we keep whining about it rather than facing up to the fact we make sure that it will be lost in the worst possible ways, i.e., useful features that expose the information to us will be stopped but governments and corporations will be able to use it as they wish. What we need to be doing is making sure that anonymity is lost equally, i.e., we don't get situations where the ghetto is filled with cameras but the suburbs are not (it is too easy to demonize 'other' people when the unblinking eye isn't trained at 'your kind'), and beefing up genuine privacy protections in the face of this loss of anonymity.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
This has already been done (granted on a much smaller scale) in Israel.
The site is: http://www.zoomap.co.il/ -- (sorry but it is very much in Hebrew).
God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man - Kronecker
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.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
The Cook County Assessors office already photographs homes and makes the photographs available online.
t ml
http://www.cookcountyassessor.com/ccao/startres.h
You can just search by address and find a lot of the public information about private residences online, including photos in most cases (in all cases in the small sample I've tried).
I wonder how common this is with other regional governments?
As a Canadian-born citizen, I'd have to agree with you. There is definitely something very wrong with Canadians being able to take pictures of your public property, while you are not. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the tone of the above statement. But if anything, this should help open your eyes to the problem America has with overreacting to everything. In my opinion (and an opinion also shared with a lot of other non-Americans) a lot of American citizens don't seem to realize the problem isn't with other countries, it's with your country. You need to lighten up, as a nation.
Blerg.
I can see it now
A hybrid stuck in the pothole every person that lives on the dirt road knows to avoid.
Like the one on my road that ate the counties road grader last week
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... by taking a picture of my home, you agree to all of the terms and conditions outlined in my home's EULA. Those terms include a 99.99% revenue share on any income related to use of said picture...
Ad Space. I'm hardly home, so I don't care that much. But I'll start selling parts of the exterior wall for ad-space. They can photograph all they want, I don't care.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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?
Who said anything about them getting a free pass?
The FBI detains people they have reasonable grounds to be suspicious of plotting an act of terrorism. If they suspect these people of plotting terrorism, they'll most likely detain them until their story can be confirmed too. There's absolutely no difference in treatment nor any kind of free pass being given.
Similarly, if the guy photographing the bridge contacted the local police department and said, "Hey, I'm going to be photographing such and such a bridge. If you want to run any background checks to verify I'm not a terrorist, go right ahead. No, you can't tell me not to do it - it's a legal right - you can only confirm I'm doing it for lawful reasons which I both am and am giving you an opportunity to check in advance." they would most likely have completely ignored him. I'm guessing, to simply avoid hassle, this company's going to have a prepared statement and will contact local PDs before going in to each area too.
In short, it's totally legal to do things like film a scene of a kidnapping but you're most likely going to get temporarily detained if you don't notify the police first. Film companies don't get a "free pass" either - they simply make sure the police are notified. The same goes for fears of terrorism and photographing potential targets and fears of burglary and and photographing homes.
Is it unfortunate that we're in a world where the gut reaction is to arrest first and ask questions later? Sure. But that should be addressed on its own merits rather than accusing people who're smart enough to recognize it sadly happens and thus take precautions of getting some kind of a free pass.
This article just made me realize that my neighbors can see the front of my house and even know when I leave and come back.
Oh, my privacy! We need to outlaw neighbors...
On the other hand, when I forget to close my garage door, one of the neighbors will probably keep an eye on the place to make sure no one walks off with stuff, and may even walk over and close it for me. Nice thing about having neighbors where you know their names...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
A better picture of your home than on Google Earth can usually be found on http://www.zillow.com/ and most cities are running around trying to get every piece of property on some type of geospatial system, so why care?
First they start taking pictures of every house in America and accessing blueprints and floor plans, then they're set. I know they're scheming for the day that they invade. After they have their pictures (which would be quite some time considering all the houses in America) they prepare their war plan and send in the roller troopers! Armed with M16s, Glock 9mms, and hockey sticks, they bring the war to the civilians.
Their vile plan to get the information on our homes must be stopped!
Viva la resistance!
Your larger point is very valid, but the people who actually take the pictures will probably not be undergoing border security. They'll be hired/culled from the surrounding areas to each "Zone."
My company doesn't speak for me, nor do I speak for my company.
So if you leave, they're going to make you leave?
This is really no big deal. Amazon had trucks driving around with cameras taking pictures of businesses for A9 a while ago. There are services for real estate agents to take pictures of houses, as well as it being common practice for appraisers. Google has sat images, local.live has aerial shots, many MLS services have "neighbor photos" sections with pictures of surrounding homes. Your house has probably been photographed before, and it'll probably happen again. I do like the idea of a banner though ;)
Someone objectionable?
What was once true, is no longer so
To get close enough to photograph one of my houses would take at least a 20 minute drive in a 4x4, across *private* property. If they try that, i get to shoot them as trespassers.
I also agree this is fishy. While i do realize its legal to stand in the street and take pictures of anything you can see, including people's private belongings, perhaps this legalty should be reconsidered. Whatever happened to 'expectations of reasonable privacy in public'?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
and you are right, the fact that you actually live there is fucked up.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
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.
Hey, I think I own some of the design elements of my house. I don't see how they have the right to sell images of this without paying me a royalty. So, what about writing any of these services a short note letting them know that I don't consent to them using images of my house for their for-profit business. Well, actually, on second thought, I might consent if they're willing to pay me a royalty I consider sufficient. Okay, a man's home ain't his castle any more, but a man's design must still be copyrighted if Micky Mouse is!
If this service is available, how long till Law Enforcement starts using it? 2 seconds after you can say "um...".
Of course it could be used in a good way or a bad way by law enforcement. A good way is that Fire and Police could tie it into the 911 database. When a call is sent to the police or fire dept from 911, besides the map they currently get, they could get a picture of the house in question. Up here in Alaska a few years back, an off duty Alaska State Trooper died because the emergency response couldn't find the house. Maybe a photo of the house would help, letting them know if they can or can't see it. Of course the report linked also mentions how information can be misused.
A discussion should be held in the public at least adequetely putting restrictions on this if necessary.Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
This is why in the old days, people had archers on their battlements ready to fire at anyone who approached. Marketing people and those who aid and abet them would be taken out immediately. And using zoom wouldn't keep them safe from a longbow.
There isn't a state in the Union that allows you to use deadly force simply because someone is trespassing. You might want to double check the laws in your state before you start shooting, otherwise the photographer may wind up owning your house.