Slashdot Mirror
Google Street View Raises Privacy Concerns
Pcol writes "The New York Times is running a story about a woman who says her cat is clearly visible through the living room window of her second-floor apartment using Street View and that she has contacted Google asking that the photo be removed. 'The issue that I have ultimately is about where you draw the line between taking public photos and zooming in on people's lives,' Ms. Kalin-Casey said in an interview. 'The next step might be seeing books on my shelf. If the government was doing this, people would be outraged.' Wired has started a contest on the most interesting photos found using the new Google Tool that now includes sunbathing coeds, alleged drug deals, and the google van itself. 'I think that this product illustrates a tension between our First Amendment right to document public spaces around us, and the privacy interests people have as they go about their day,' says Kevin Bankston, a staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
By protesting that much about a photo, she now has her name and address (not just her cat) blasted all over the web. If she had said nothing, possibly it would have all blown over.
if everyone could see my pussy through a window on the internet.
I'm so sorry, I just couldn't resist it...
Summation 2
fte all, she`s not objecting to people taking her picture, she'`s objecting to people taking her picture inside her house, without her consent, which is the definition of an invasion of privacy.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Many other companies have been doing this for realestate industry for years...
Also, copyright law states (IANAL) that you can take pictures of people in their homes from the street. Only no zooming, and with (I think) a 55mm lens at best. Look up the case law. The only think I think that may be challenged in court is if high res photos at 55mm constitutes some kind of new zoom...
Who cares if I can see your cat or not? If it doesn't matter if I'm walking past your house and see it then why on Earth does it matter if I can see it using my PC? I think the reaction is OTT and irrational. And in regards to the "books on shelves" part - I wouldn't care if they knew what books I was reading. If I did have a book I shouldn't have (whatever that book might be) I would take teh effort to prevent the Government from finding out.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/request_f or_urb.html
Your tongues can't repel flavor of that magnitude!
I am wrestling with this. If you can see me, from the street, from a car, for God's sake, then how much expectation of privacy do I really have?
I'm not sure I understand the objections. If I go to a strip club, and I am seen leaving it, well, then, I was a douchebag for not being sneakier about it, if I don't want anybody to know.
Is the problem that the photos are being published on a widely-used web page?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
It were perfectly reasonable if Google were on her property when the photos were taken (they weren't).
It'd be perfectly reasonable if her blinds were closed (which would lend credence to them 'invading' her privacy)
But it isn't even remotely reasonable because she keeps her blinds open! If you don't want someone to take pictures of you, or see you doing the nasty, or anything else inside your house, close your blinds, otherwise you have no expectation of privacy, either from the government, or from your fellow citizens.
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
the pictures show what anyone driving down the street would see. there aren't any privacy concerns because the pictures don't contain anything private- i know this may come as a shock to the mental midget in TFA, but glass is transparent.
this is only news-worthy because it has a couple buzzwords like "google" and "privacy concerns". meanwhile, the people who are actually tapping your phone/internet traffic/watching you continue to perpetrate *horrendous* privacy violations, and nobody cares because of watered-down crap like this. if we're going to be morally outraged by something, let's pick something actually scandalous, m'kay?
Who says the government would tell us it is doing this?
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
I'm rather amazed at how well this actually works....a friend of mine is from Miami. He looked up one of the more destitute areas in the city and sure enough there it was.
We were dying laughing for nearly 10 minutes thinking about a big google van driving through the slums and taking panoramic photos.
Christ we are geeks.
Living With a Nerd
If it's visible from the street, it's public domain. If she has a problem with this, she can invest in some curtains.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I reckon, even if the cat could speak, it doesn't give a shit about being looked at.
If she has problems with people being able to look through her window, get a net curtain. Cats can work out that they can see the outside better if they go behind the net curtain, so the cat's view won't be spoiled.
Duh!
In the '80s, Microsoft was the geek hero, fighting against the big bad IBM. Today, Google takes Microsoft's place, and it's hero in the minds of the current generation of geek.
The main difference is that Microsoft always spoke of itself as a profit-making business. Google pretends to be something "better".
Yes, give it a decade, and of course people will hate Google as much as they hated Microsoft, and it will behave as abusively as Microsoft did during its heyday 5-10 years ago. But I don't want to enjoy the monopolisation of various Internet features, and the other fallout, that comes of its steamrolling in the meanwhile.
What happened to the entrepreneurs like Hewlett, Packard and Olsen, who actually built amazing new stuff to become world leaders? Google haven't done nothing, but the evolutionary step they made to put them where they are even pales in comparison to what Microsoft did for the PC.
I have realised this merely highlights a far greater lapse in privacy!
Anyone passing in the street can see in her window too!
Just buy some net curtains love.
Is there a difference between being seen, and having your photograph taken by someone you can't possibly identify as a photographer, and have the photograph stored in perpetuity and sent to everyone in the world?
Not sure I see it myself.
I totally agree. I'm not sure why she's making such a fuss, I mean, anybody could look into her window, and anybody could have taken a picture, so why does it matter?
She shouldn't bitch about things that any person on the street could see, but then again, it is called "street view" isn't it?
BTW, I'm Canadian Too.
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
I hope his wife isn't checking out this Google Street View.
After all of their vaunted 'do no evil' slogan.. with all of the developement power they have, they didn't consider using image processing software to outline the drawing using the scenes natural colors, they didn't consider using a blur, they didn't consider making a very public statement about how they would use the technlogies and discard the true images...
they had here a perfect chance to lead the way in mapping and instead just became Britain^2. Way to go guys, way to lead the future.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
I live in what has been at times a sketchy neighborhood, and I've talked to the police about putting up a private security camera. Cars have been vandalized, graffiti on sidewalks and buildings, but supposedly the drug house up the road is cleaned up. Not sure if it's state or county law, but I can't point a camera at someone else's private property. I can point it at my property, and I can point it at public property. I cannot record sound, only video.
Check the laws about this sort of thing where you live. If you find a picture going inside your home, you may be able to go after them.
I find the 360/zoom gimmicky -- I found the old A9 maps much more useful. I was able to use A9 maps to select a neighborhood when I was changing cities -- just simple static streetscape photos like a normal person would take. And A9 had a lot more coverage.
Is rent such space in my house for advertising... do you imagine how much would V1Agr4 companies would pay for such a position?
Alternatively, print an 2A0 goatse picture and hang it over there... you can bet google wont like to zoom-in over there.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
. . . the first time they catch a politician's cavorting with his mistress (or, more likely, his car parked at her place). Until then, I predict a smattering of divorce cases where these shots are presented as evidence, as well as the occasional naked fat guy caught standing in front of his picture window drinking out of the milk carton. Please, Google, technologize responsibly! ;-)
a woman who says her cat is clearly visible through the living room window of her second-floor apartment using Street View Funny... I wonder how come no one complains when the DoT, DoJ and other stupidly acronymed agencies throw cameras on every street corner... Out of sight out of mind for some. No one outside of spectators (those who don't actually see through the camera's lens) knows what these cameras see or record yet they assume based on naive premise "the government would never..." Sure the gov would never, that doesn't mean there couldn't possibly be a pedophile or peeping tom working for the government and seeing into one's private life 24/7.
I wish there could be like true blue public forum based discussions on these matters so people can get a true perspective of reality before wanting their 15 minutes of fame. Would I be mad if Google passed me by on the street while I was scratching my crotch... No. Would I be upset if they filmed my cat? No. Home? No. Would I be mad if it was constant (so called antiterrorism foobar cams)... Yes.
Infiltrated dot Net
The chances of this happening at the moment are small, but what happens when ever street you know gets a "live-view"? It seems far fetched now, but there are already cameras with live-feeds overlooking certain places in the world.
Although it is also a nice thought that you can see any view from any place on earth (well, not yet) without being there, virtual travel is nothing new.
What it comes down to is are you willing to give up some portion of your privacy for the sake of bringing the world to the computer in all it's glory, or lack thereof.
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
The Battery Tunnel in NYC is clearly seen throughout in street view. Its been illegal since 9/11 to take any photos in or on any of the bridges and tunnels of NYC.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Many nations out there just dream that these things were available for them. It is the ultimate truth of living in the country of freedom of expression: being able to be famous every once in a while in that page that people from Congo can open up and see your cat. Go live in the hut somewhere at the St. Laurence island. I bet the picture of your cat will be kept private for a century or two.
If you look closely at the cat in the picture
You can see the cat looks desperate to get out of the house and away from the crazy lady.
Perhaps we should band up and conduct a rescue raid.
If you have nothing to hide, who cares?
That's almost precisely the same line the Bush administration used to justify residential wiretapping. You're playing with fire there. People should have the right to privacy in their own homes. I say it's okay for Google to photograph a house's exterior, but not the interior.
...to Japanese. /.-jper also complains about Google privacy policy.
Some
and got answered with US thinking about picture at public place.
#An Annoymous Cowered wondered what happened if the most well-known American sentient mouse is photographed at public place.but it's entirely another matter.
Lady, if you have privacy concerns, close your drapes.
I don't know, but it was pretty clear to me (no pun intended) from an early age that windows are generally see-through BOTH WAYS. Glass is a fairly egalitarian thing. Don't want to be seen? Pull the shades. And before the privacy wanks all chime in about how unfair this is that one must isolate oneself for privacy - at a certain point, you can't deny the reality of your existence in a physical world, where, barring pricey tech, if you can see out others can see in.
Next thing you know, someone might be LOOKING AT YOU without your permission! Oh noes!
-Styopa
The UK is just as bad. We refuse to extradite a Russian oligarch to Russia to stand trial on numerous serious charges ranging from fraud to terrorism, then complain when the Russians won't extradite a Russian to us to stand trial for murder. But of course we are the good guys.
Pining for the fjords
That "battle" has only begun, and this is but the first incident.
What's wrong about seeing that old woman's pussy (juvenile crowd, silence please)? You could stand in the street, look up and behold, you would've seen the same. That cute fuzzy thing.
The difference is that you would have to have been THERE, exactly THEN, to behold it. This moment is now frozen forever, for everyone to see.
Now imagine a FF to the not-so-far future, when it becomes technically possible to do such things not only as snapshots, but continuous. Perfect live streams from everywhere to everywhere. Yes, the technology is already here, but I'm talking absolutely ubitiquous. "Google street view" gives you the current live pictures from whatever corner of the world you want to be on.
Kinda scary if you ask me. Stalking's never been easier. It would be trivial to follow a person throughout his or her life.
"Close the blinds" kinda doesn't cut it. Every halfway remotely free country on this planet defines your home as some kind of sanctuary, where even the state can't simply waltz in and do what they please. Here, it's illegal to explicitly spy into the windows of houses you can look into. When you take a picture of a house, you have to get the (written) OK from every single owner of an apartment in the house whose window you might be showing in that picture, if you want to publish the picture.
I'm kinda surprised that no law like this exists in the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Where does it end? What if google shows a picture of you through your window on your computer on google looking at someone else through their window?
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
If your cat/books/whatever else is in view of the general public, then your lack of privacy is your doing. Not Google's.
If you don't want someone seeing your cat or your books, cover your window. The street is a public place and anyone can go there are look anywhere they want. Why don't you call John Doe that takes your street to his work and tell him to stop looking around in front of your house.
Your 15 minutes are up.
According to PCMag,http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2139716 ,00.asp the Google Maps Street View walk through New York City shows only blurry faces, street signs, etc. But San Francisco is a different story. Even so, Lance Ulanoff says Google will not back down. This thing is going to make Google another boatload of money.
however, the slashdot crowd, enamored as it with privacy, is beginning to learn that "do no evil" is just a marketing slogan, and that, in fact, in cases like this, as with doubleclick, as with cooperation with authoritarian china, as with data retention of searches, that google isn't really such a darling company any more
it is my prediction that within 5 years, due to google's massive ability to read and retain so much data about our lives that would otherwise be anonymous and private, that you will see google become something hated on slashdot far more than something like microsoft, and approaching the hatred the usual slashdot crowd reserves for the likes of ashcroft or the current neocons in the white house. in 2 years time, this crop of neocons will be long gone. google won't. google will still be growing, feeding on all of our data
mark my words folks, from the left, from the right, you will all come to loathe google, for a myriad of privacy intruding reasons, that are only thickening day by day
google's CEO on record saying google will eventually know more about you than you will know about yourself:
if some of you are still worried about microsoft, and haven't redirected your focus on google as basically the most evil thing happening on the Internet/ in the realm of privacy today, you are behind the times, your stereotypes are outdated
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if you check "Girl Bends Over... Guys Check Her Out" [1] look at other side, you will see man coming out from strip club, worst timing ever!
1 - map
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
I spotted a former intern of mine in the "Google Dorks" picture. The "kid" looks older than most of his co-workers...
(And, no I'm not old. I haven't even bought my mid-life-crisis-car yet.)
The equal access rights for public info is an important thing in privacy issues.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Not insightful, as they are completely different situations. With windows, you can close the blinds. With wiretapping, you cannot choose to not be tapped.
...which was yesterday. If anyone had a problem with content for any of the photos they had taken, they would remove it on request.
What they're doing is not illegal, as other posters have pointed out, and they seem pretty receptive to the privacy concerns. Kudos to them for doing something very useful with some sort of conscience.
Check out this place
Here is the description that can be found in wired article:
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Offtopic, I know, but "sunbathing coeds"? As in "sunbathing students of both genders" or as in "sunbathing women"? Why do we refer to women like they're anomalies at academic institutions?
At my school, we have something like 60% women... should we call men "co-eds"?
Go ahead, mod me down as offtopic, but this kind of thing irks me.
1. 'indiscriminant' is not a word. You probably meant 'indiscriminate'.
2. Surveillance has two l's and only two e's.
And this hardly constitutes indiscriminate surveillance.
Canthros
Not insightful, as they are completely different situations. With windows, you can close the blinds. With wiretapping, you cannot choose to not be tapped.
You could choose not to use unsecured phone lines. Nobody's stopping you from doing all your communication through encrypted email.
the attitudes in the posts here reveal the prejudices and stereotypes of the usual slashbot
namely:
1. government baaad
2. google gooood
i was just reading the comments under the story about anti-forensic disk tools and the level of paranoia about a hypothetical situation involving disk access by the government was everywhere. and all around was an evisceration of the 'if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide' attitude
and then, bam, you turn around and read this story, and 'if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide' is a synopsis of the attitude of a lot the posters!
dear slashbots: your prejudices are showing. what you need to do is pick an ideological position on privacy, and apply it equally to google and the government. because when you use a double standard on privacy in regards to a darling internet company versus the bad ol usa government, you are revealing some pretty flimsy stereotypes and prejudices on your part
in fact, you could make the case for worrying about google more than the government. given the legal bonds that tie the hands of the government, usually populated by incompetent bureaucrats, as opposed to what the highly competitive cutthroat corporate business environment might drive its employees who are caltech and MIT and stanford PhDs in their field to do, i might worry a whole HELL of a lot more about what google is doing with my privacy than the usa
one would hope some of you would aspire to be a little less transparent and hypocritical and shallow and see-through in your beliefs. on the issue of privacy, you better upgrade your attitude of the us government to that of your attitude towards google, or downgrade your attitude of google to match your attitude towards the us government. but overly excusing google and overly indemnifying the us government is not an intellectually or morally coherent position for many of you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But that's precisely the problem here: her interior is visible from the exterior.
To put it in perspective, my family has a home at the beach. My mom bought a large picturesque window for the front so they could look at the beach. It also happens to be by the TV. So, anytime people are watching the TV inside, people outside can look in.
My mom complains about this all the time. "It's late at night. People are relaxing while watching TV. Why do they have to look in?" My response is always the same: "Why did you put the window up?"
People have a right to privacy, but if they're "flaunting" their interior with windows and no curtains, how far does Google have to go to ensure their privacy? Same thing with my family's home. It's a nice house. Should we be up in arms when passersby take pictures of it? Should we freak out that they're potentially taking pictures of us watching TV?
The answer, like most things in life, is simple: put up curtains.
So are we all okay now with the constant video surveillance by the government in large urban areas (ie: London)? Just checking. I still think there is a line that was crossed somewhere. Not sure where it is, but definitely when we can see individuals' faces via satellite imaging (when a person has no idea they are being photoed).
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Looks like I'll be ditching the 'beta' soon...
This guy's the limit!
Dunno about her cat being "clearly" visible -- her windows could do with a clean! Also, did anyone else think it was funny her house number was 404?
Google should allow people the option to send in an alternate photo. Give people the information on where to stand and what kinds of camera you can use, and then, if approved, pay something like $100 a photo. Maybe have an approval process first for whether the photo is inappropriate or not, and other ways to keep people from scamming the system.
That way, people can regain their privacy, and make a hundred bucks, and Google keeps their reputation, and doesn't pay much more than they would sending someone out to retake the photo.
And that will be the end of google views.
Best Slashdot Co
I'm sad to say it, but I think we're not far off from the general populace expecting that they are being photographed 24/7. At that point nobody should really mind anymore. It makes me uneasy though.
The government's intent is for crimefighting, so I'm not thrilled about the guilty-until-proven-innocent connotations. Google's intent is to make their product more useful, which it does extremely well, but nobody needs directions to the coffeemaker in my kitchen.
You are totally correct when you speak of the invisible line to be drawn. There is the real world and there is the internet where the real world is represented by data. The line should stipulate how closely the internet may describe the real world.
Google has the technology to pick out faces from search results, as seen when you add &imgtype=face to the URL of any image search. With this and other image mining techniques there are some pretty big dangers of automated violation of privacy.
Teraherz? Since when does Infrared light let you look into buildings?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This sounds crazy!
What'd be the difference between watching you entering that adult-only shop via web cam or being there personally?
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Is a moving target.
You've got a right to privacy anywhere you've got a reasonable expectation of it.
Nude sunbathing behind a privacy fence means that you don't expect your neighbor's 15-year old son to get out his dad's stepladder.
As soon as someone convinces a judge that people have reasonable expectation that satellite images of their nekkidness are going to be publicly available, that "reasonable expectation of privacy" goes away.
If this hasn't happened yet, it will soon.
Same thing with the street images.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
but didn't Microsoft already do something similar with their Live Local. I can't find it at the moment. But I was sure I had seen similar pictures from San Francisco last year on Live Local.
I know it's 'in' to bash Google for privacy infringement, but is it really warranted in this?
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
How are we to be expected to comment if we can't see the cat in the window?
Deleted
With all the implications for privacy, which are being discussed already, this raises a couple of other questions :
A good set of curtains or blinds would go a long way. Is she also worried about the hundreds of people who walk by her house and see inside her house?
-
Q
The US concept of privacy is an aberration. Should we strive for it? Yes, but we shouldn't expect it to last.
For centuries, families have lived in squalid one bedroom homes where the entire family slept and did other things in the same bed. Everyone knew everyone's business. When the founding fathers thought of privacy they were thinking of the privileged.
I think it is extremely silly to expect privacy to last.
we are living in an age where the average person can get equipment to see through walls, record conversations or videos, and do background/financial checks from their desk.
Two things are going to happen....some people are going to be annoyed by what they see and want to stamp it out....and some people are going to say 'so what? I saw something like that last week.'
The real question is when the offended person tries stamp out the activity are you going to defend it even if you don't do it?
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Well she doesn't want a pretty low res picture of her cat in Street View but has a high-res picture of her, her cat and the room on the nytimes.com ...
Has anyone actually looked at the picture? The top half of the window is covered by a blind. The bottom half looks almost black, apart from reflections of stuff across the street. On maximum zoom you can just about make out a cat with its face right next to the glass. You can't see anything else in the room at all. Unless Google have changed the pictures since this story came out, the complaint is ridiculous.
I was wondering if license plate numbers would show up, but I didn't see any. When you zoom the pictures I saw it's a crappy digital zoom that makes the pixels fatter without adding any more information. I'm still hoping my favorite politician will show up with a prostitute on one of them.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"if those pictures were of their living space they would be up-in-arms the same way this woman is."
Why would I get upset about Google showing pictures of my blinds?
I was wondering when this issue would come up. When street view first came out I immediately went and looked for license plates. Sure enough there are quite a few that are clearly readable and you're also able to see the driver.
The reasonable expectation of privacy on one's own property does not extend to accidentally revealing yourself to those off your property.
First off, it was a _cat_ sitting in a window. (Cats do that.) And if you look in the picture, the cat was on an object (looks like a custom cat furniture thing) right directly up against the window.
Tell ya what chyk, put your _other_ pussy up against the window and don't see if you get busted. Or if you really want to rile the cops up, a (gasp!) cannabis plant!
This is not a privacy issue at all. It's a "I am a dumb girl that doesn't realize how easy it is to see in" issue.
The only difference in what Google is doing and any gangbanger wannabee or cop walking around her neighborhood looking at her cat/pussy, is that Google is putting these on the web, and probably eventually A LOT of them on the web. As painful as it is to realize how much you might get seen in your living room, it isn't Google's fault or problem.
Large scale does not equal privacy invasion folks.
In order of increasing complexity.
- Buy some damn curtains. This solution has the added benefit that it also protects your cat from unwanted observation from sources besides the Google folks. It is worth noting that if your cat cannot be observed, it may enter a indeterminate quantum state.
- Request (using the link provided by Google) that Google remove your address from the street view.
- Whine about it to the new york times.
- Build a wall in front of your house. Similar to curtains but it has the added benefit from preventing you from leaving your house where somebody somewhere might observe you.
- Develop the means to create and trap a singularity and place it in front of your house so that it can bend the light around your house. If you try to leave your house you will of course get sucked up and your component atoms may end up in another universe but at least nobody would see you.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Feel free to exercise your right to privacy - close your drapes.
As long as Google doesn't violate my reasonable expectation of privacy, I see no problems. If you can see me walking around in my underwear from the street with no blinds pulled, I have no claim to privacy as I have made my goods exposed to whomever is outside. However, if I pull a blackout curtain and you stare through the gap on either side, now you've violated my privacy.
Sunbathing in public offers no privacy expectations. Walking out of a XXX theater offers no privacy expectations. Seeing your cat through an open window offers no privacy expectations. Get over it. We all have embarrassing pictures taken.
Stop trying to shroud innovation as evil. I think this is a great tool, especially when I'm going someplace I've never been. Landmark-based drivers such as myself will absolutely love this. And if you're so concerned about someone taking a picture of you in a public street, wear a paper bag over your head. Both the photo and the paper bag are perfectly legal in this country.
It's not a matter of whether or not someone's watching over you. It's just a question of their intentions. -- Randy K. Milholland
possibly coerce you and keep you in line and maintain their own existing power-base if they don't implement such measures.
It is an old saying, but I'm sure we've all heard it before: "When we are afraid, we will do anything to feel safer." So the Government that is afraid that it is losing it's grip will force the People to live in fear.
Sure you don't always think of the fact that you're afraid, but when's the last time you were on an open stretch of highway and just wanted to have a brief moment of the exhiliration that you see portrayed on film of speeding and pushing you car to the limit, or when have you ever wanted to climb to the top of a skyscraper just to see the view?
Granted the greater good is maintained when you don't run 120mph down the road, and surely you cannot fall to your death if you are not allowed to be in the open air at 1200ft. But when it's just you, and there is obviously no one else around, can not be anyone else around, why couldn't you go 120mph? It's your car. You fund the highway.
Now here come the nay-sayers to claim that there must be law maintained so you cannot go over the speed limit. Here come those who claim that my speeding is killing the environment. Here is my tormentor who claims that the wind must surely blow me to my death. There are those who claim that surely I will injure someone, or cause grief to come upon my family if I die.
I do not deny these facts, but I also do not deny that I am more than capable of handling my car at 120mph on a flat stretch of road, and am capable of doing slight corners at well over 90mph. Many rally-car drivers do it daily. And no, I do not own a rally-car, nor do I think I do. I am aware of reality.
I do not deny that I would not want to fall 1200ft to my death. I do not argue that indeed I am afraid of heights that tall. But I do know that the wind in my face is great, and that the view from the top of a mountain is spectacular, so why would the view of man's great accomplishment be any less spectacular? And what if I want to be on the open, upper-layers to admire the spectacular building adornments that the architects designed into the building?
But would any police officer understand your plea of unbridled passion for life if he witnessed your speeding? Would any security officer share your passion of witnessing the majestic glory of what Man can accomplish?
So until the Government can remember that we are not all bodies politic, and instead that we are people with emotions, and not just People, then, no, the Government cannot allow us to feel that we are do any sense of privacy.
We must not stand by and idly allow our freedoms to be taken from us. I can understand the need to protect the people, but as Ben Franklin so aptly stated: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I agree with the sentiment. I don't see how any self-aware man cannot agree. I am not for the disarming of the military, but I am for the reduction of Government on a Federal level. It is to the State to preserve the rights of the individuals who live within its borders. It is to the Federal Government to preserve the authority of contracts between states and to defend the common borders.
We've all had the history classes, but who amongst us still believes that the Government should be for the People, and of the People? Obviously not those who run the so-called Government, nor those who sit at the head of the Corporations which control the Government.
I have gone on long enough with this short rant, so if you wish to tear this apart, go ahead, and I'll respond in like.
I know my position and I am not afraid to defend it, nor to redefine it with new information learned. I know myself.
I am for the death penalty, but I am against death row. I am for capital punishment, but I believe that any punishment must be decided upon by a jury, and any proceedings against the accused must start
2^3 * 31 * 647
I really don't like your answer but I think it's the only one. I do feel that there's a distinction though. Unlike passers-by, Google is publishing and profiting from that picture of your property.
Wait a second... there's a picture of a cat on the internet and it's not looking for cheeseburgers?
A true statement and a valid point, but there's a piece missing from the "walking down the street" analogy that seems to be eluding most of us. When a person walks down the street and looks into a home through a street-facing window, it's extremely unlikely that the window is actually a one-way mirror that only allows viewing in. So yes, they can see what's inside, but anyone inside can also see them. Stop and think about that for a moment, because it's a natural check-and-balance mechanism that, in my opinion, should not be left out of these sorts of privacy discussions: While you can't deny other people the right to look at you in public without your permission, it's only fair that you get to look at them at the same time. If nothing else, it's reasonable to at least have the opportunity to know who is looking.
But with Google Street View, or the Zaio Corp. database, or any similar endeavor, you don't get that courtesy. Even if you were lucky enough to spot the camera in the ten to fifteen seconds it was visible, you still don't know how many millions of people just looked into your life at that moment. And don't forget this is Google we're talking about: among other things, the new background checker for lazy hiring managers, who naturally have your home address at the top of your résumé. Suddenly anyone who lives in a Street View-covered area had better:
For the record, I like Street View. I've been hoping Google would add something like that for some time. But don't gloss over the privacy concerns by equating walking down the street and looking through a window with driving a van down hundreds of streets taking millions of photographs and associating them with street addresses on the world's largest search engine. Only one of these makes your private life public, and it's not the first one.
One could argue that someone out there taking pictures of our house is a homebuilder and will use the ideas in a future home. Again, we should be up in arms about it?
And there are alternate answers:
1.) Put up a one way mirror.
2.) Put up venetian blinds that automatically close.
3.) Leave it a wall.
In my mind a window is a pretty obvious invitation for people to look in both directions. If you only want people looking in one direction you don't put up a window. Commercial entity looking in or not.
Should we freak out that they're potentially taking pictures of us watching TV?
This is America. You should always freak out about everything. (If you don't, then you don't care about the children or you're corrupt or "privileged" or you are otherwise damaged or bad in some way.)
After a while, a press consensus will develop, and then you should only freak out about what you're told to freak out about. Some people get a free pass.
The person I'm trying to stalk doesn't live anywhere near one of these street view photo spots. ; ;
It is ok for a passer-by to see and look what is in the house, incidentally (and I think It is not ok, gawk and hawk, this is already illegal AFAIK). AGAIN It is ok to accidentally look. It is a breach of privacy to take photo of people's interrior and especially to PUBLISH them. The relevant point is not that something see what's inside the woman's house, the salient point is that it was published.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
...42 snapshots.
a link to the sunbathing coeds please?
I wish I could mod you "Crackpot".
But really, does the White House need to send a memo to every household in America stating they must buy one-way mirrors for all their outward facing windows to prevent their home interiors from being published on the web? I really think the government should rule in favour of personal privacy on this matter. Legislation or no, It'd sure be classy of Google to be proactive and simply find a way to blur windows. Their product would be equally useful and people could rest easy.
This is a zero-day issue, you might say. I doubt there is precedent. It's inevitable that someone will sue Google for this. I'll be very interested to see what US law says about this. Google is a company like any other but they're not as stubborn as the RIAA so I doubt they'll proactively petition the government for permission to film inside homes.
So having natural light in a house is "flaunting?" Perhaps your family has a hidden window related agenda, I just happen to prefer not having to have every light in the house on all the time.
A lot of good points have been made, but nobody seems to have said much about the picture itself.
Yes, the cat is visible in the shot, but where is the camera actually focused? The cat is at the top of a picture of a building. Chances are the photographer didn't even notice it. I understand that there's a lot more to this and it raises other issues, etc. What's bothering me is that so many people are saying that Google is taking pictures of people like they're targets or subjects when they're actually just taking pictures of areas and people happen to inhabit them.
...because we are watching. ahh the motto is aimed at us and not them.
So you're saying that the government can bring in a private contractor to do what the government can't legally do itself? They can hire rent-a-cops to do unconstitutional search-n-seizures? Pay the KKK to lynch some uppity Negroes?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
The guy in the demo video probably wanted a little more privacy too. (Well, he did eventually put the boxes on over his spandex...)
They say the mind is the first thing to
is that they are so open to interpretation. Or misinterpretation.
For instance I see one photo widely reputed to be a guy taking a leak into some bushes in San Francisco. If you look at the view shown by the submitter it looks plausible. But, go back one frame toward the east and then pan back to the figure by the bush. It now appears to be someone, possible a woman, who has turned toward the bushes to get a mirror or iPod out of the direct sunlight to use it in shadow. Then pan to her left and you see a police car approaching. Maybe he/she is trying to duck the cops and the whole thing has been recorded for posterity by the Google van.
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
No, that's just looking at the heat output of the building. You can't see people inside through the walls with IR.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
For some reason the signs banning camera use on the GWB were unusually blurry that day.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
That does nothing at all to justify going around and facilitating the work of would-be burglars and kidnappers.It`s kind of like arguing that the crusades nullify any attempt to curb violence today.
Roger Meyers, "creator" of Itchy and Scratchy, appearing on Smartline
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing...
There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent Brockman: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance.
Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went
on for thirty years.
Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
-- `Smartline', ``Itchy and Scratchy and Marge''
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Thank you, SilentChris! My wife just left me, I just lost my job, and I'm the prime suspect in a murder, but I just put up curtains and my entire life is back on track!
</sarcasm>
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
Yes, that is me. On my board last summer.
I've quit smoking and put on weight since then.
Best Slashdot Co
If she wants privacy shouldn't she just buy nice curtains, instead of bitch about her cat's exposure over the internet ?
Next week's News flash :
Government to put an addendum in DCMA declaring curtains as an illegal method of circumvention of public anti-terrorist spy surveying. Think of the children.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
There are a lot worse privacy issues than just cats listed here: http://www.laudontech.com/StreetView/streetview.ht ml
There are exceptions. You can't photograph someone standing in the street and run a caption with the photo that says: "Wanted terrorist seen leaving his house" if the person in the photo is just some guy going to get a pack of cigarettes. And you can't photograph Barney Jones waiting for a bus and then use the photo in an ad that says, "Barney Jones drinks new Fizzo Soda and you should, too."When you are outside, you don't have the right to privacy. If someone is taking a photo of the street, and you're standing in front of a window that doesn't have any blinds or curtains, you don't have any right to privacy. If you want privacy, draw the blinds.
How anyone can construe a photograph of a cat in a window as being an invasion of privacy is totally beyond me. I read her comments ("You can even see that it's a tabby.") I don't know when animals were granted the right to privacy in photographs or how photographing a cat somehow violates the owner's imagined right to privacy. This sort of thing shows ignorance on the part of the woman and also on the part of the media (this is hardly surprising). Perhaps this person just wants to be famous.
Some one drew a stick figure of me hunting a buffalo now people will know I'm not a vegetarian. Someone learned language and give me a name now people can talk to me. Someone name the area I live in now people can find me. Someone gave my street a name now people know what road I live on. Someone gave my house a number now people can know where I live. Someone invented the yellow pages now they can easily find my address. Someone invented reverse phone number look up now I can't keep my number secrete. Someone took my picture and put it on the internet with my name now people will know what a guy named Tom was doing. Someone took a satellite picture of my house and put it on the internet now people will know I don't garden. Someone took a picture of the front of my house and posted it on the internet a year later, you can see my cat, I better tell the news so I can keep my privacy. This situation and uproar only proves Google's dominance in the search map market. Microsoft has a service like this (http://preview.local.live.com/) A9.com used to have a service just like this. I'm not sure what function this service offers (besides hours of mindless fun looking for year old crime and other funny moments in the life of strangers, which is reason enough for me). It may serve just as much of a function to hide the photos except for key spots on driving directions. Ie. Turn left at the Wal-Mart and show a photo of what you would see or pass the cvs and show a photo.
What happens when Google Floorplan is released, and the imaging technologies they've employed look through your curtains? It's still "visible from the street."
--
Franklin
My first reaction is always "If you don't want people seeing you, close your curtains, you loser!"
But then I RTFA, and she's kinda cute.
Now I'm wondering how frequently the Google Van "refreshes its cache"... maybe we can get some more pix of her...
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
but getting in a car accident usually just leaves you with a sore neck
yet by your logic i should freak out every time i'm near the ocean, and never swim in it again, and constantly worry about getting eaten by a shark... but go ahead and drive dui, or drive while chatting on my cell phone, etc., without a second thought
come to think of it, this gives you the typical risk calculating profile of the average joe: unable to compute simple probability versus hysterical sensationalism. this is why people fear airplane rides, but have no problem getting on highways with teen drivers holding emotional conversations with their girlfriends, truckers hopped up on methamphetamine, soccer moms chatting on their cell phone and scolding their children in the rear view mirror, etc. airplane rides are orders of magnitude more safe than driving a car, but a car has the illusion of control: you're behind the steering wheel. on an airplane, you're helpless in your little seat, a piece of cargo. on the highway, even though you can't control the 100 assholes you drive by on a typical trip, you feel like you are safer: your hands on the steering wheel
it's psychological, this illusion, this inability to properly calculate real risk, warped as it is by your sense of control or lack thereof. it explains your weird scenario of men in black randomly framing you with random crimes, versus your relaxed attitude towards a company that can link your identity with your private searches. in one scenario, you feel like you are in control, typing away by choice at your computer, but with your government, you feel helpless in your ability to control a monolithic bureacracy seemingly above any accountability or reason in your paranoid b-level hollywood plot fantasies
the chance of your personal private searches being traced to your identity uniquely and sold and probed by a search engine is orders of magnitude higher than men in black suits deciding to abduct you and stick alien probes up your anus or whatever your paranoid imagination is full of
in other words, maybe you should worry about the damage to your privacy at the hands of google (likely, considering their publicly stated plans) than death at the hands of your government (much worse, but a couple of million times less likely, despite your regular diet of hollywood dreck)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yup, this sure is a stupid woman. I can't understand her complaint at all.
"They can see my cat!" she cries.
"Oh, shut up," howls the crowd. "If you didn't want people to look in, you should have put up curtains."
2010: Google-InfraCam is announced.
"I put up curtains, they can still see my cat," the woman cries.
"Oh, shut up," howls the crowd. "If you didn't want people to look in, you shouldn't be living so near to the street."
2015: Google Telescope Cam introduced.
"I moved ten miles away from public land, they can still see my cat!" the woman cries.
"Oh, shut up," howls the crowd. "If you didn't want people to look in, you should have encased your house in lead."
How far does a person have to go to protect their privacy? Yes, the examples above are a bit extreme, but the point remains: we shouldn't have to live in a dungeon to maintain some semblance of privacy. Especially when it's well within Google's abilities -by blurring the photos, for instance- to prevent easy identification.
I can't understand why people are so willing to throw away what little chance of privacy they have, especially since -once it is gone- it's never coming back. The case in question about the woman's cat is a bit preposterous, I'll admit, but it's better to settle these issues now rather than just silently wait for the problem to get worse before speaking up.
Or is everybody just so desperate for their "fifteen minutes of fame" that they are willing to sacrifice not only their privacy for the rest of their lives, but the privacy of everybody else as well?
It's all fury and unkempt. At least they could have let me know and I would have trimmed it up!
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
Didn't say curtains solve all problems. Just that a lot of problems have simple answers.
In your case, I'd recommend the venetian blinds.
I think we should all play a game called "Give the Google Van the Finger", then we can see how many of us show up on the Internet with the finger.
If this comes up in an interview, swear up and down "that isn't me".
FLR
Sheesh, The Transparent Society came out nearly 10 years ago, Earth was published in 1990, and some of the same themes show up in Stand on Zanzibar (1968) and The Shockwave Rider (1975). Professor Steve Mann took this further and developed a series of Wearcams through the '90s.
Anyone who hasn't been anticipating this for at least the past decade, if not longer, has some remedial reading ahead of them.
A few years back someone argued that ubquitous cameras were OK only if everyone had full and equal access to the images. Else this creates a power inequality where a privleged class of people has access to more information than other people. In some sense google is approaching this standard. Except if they keep internal databases that have more information than they allow the public to see.
I'm not sure if I buy this myself.
The bit about "normal" referring to the perspective similar for human eye is a common misconception. It has to do with lens design, not human eye: lenses shorter than "normal" are called wide angle, lenses longer than normal - telephoto.
A normal lens is a lens whose focal length is roughly equal to the length of diagonal of the imaging surface onto which it's designed to project.
But regardless of this issue, the angle of view (determined by the focal lens) has little to do with privacy. The resolution of the pictures is more important. They can "zoom in" digitally as long as the resolution allows, not necessarily optically.
Arcady Genkin
So good luck thinking that your privacy extends somewhere/somehow into the public view.
I hate slashdot
Why do I have a feeling this woman wouldn't give a damn at all about this unless she's afraid her landlord is going to find out she broke the lease terms by having a cat?
:)
Sort of the inverse of cui bono, no?
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Lynching is a great example because of the fascinating historical coincidence of the Sheriff and his Deputies always being in some other part of the county whenever one of those necktie parties came about. I live in one of the cities where airport security is contracted out. Are they any less subject to controls against abuse than actual government officials 'acting under color of authority'?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
... but Google allows others to do it FOR me. How great is that?
tone
tone
She's welcome to leave all the non-street-facing-windows she wants open, and she has a reasonable expectation of privacy there. However, with a big, clear window facing a public street, there is no expectation of privacy.
It'd be like arresting someone for being a peeping-tom when they looked at your house while they walked past.
If she doesn't want her "sofa on Google", she should perhaps get some curtains. Given that her address is public, I expect photographers will now try to see how much they can actually capture from public property. And given that she is now a public figure, there is even less she can do about it.
If she had been in a compromising position, I'd at least understand why she might be unhappy, but a blurry picture of her cat seems hardly reason to complain.
So, Ms. Kalin-Casey, either embrace your latent exhibitionist tendencies, or just get some curtains, like civilized people do.
Hey, I saw that movie, too. Denzel at his finest.
It isn't about the cat.
Are you adequate?
where in the first amendment does it say we can take pictures of whats around us?
Where does it say you can peer into other peoples homes?
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
ok, that's not it.
"or abridging the freedom of speech,"
Taking pictures is not speech. Showing pictures is speech. Peering into peoples homes is not speech.
" or of the press;
You can certianly write about something that happened, but it is unreasonable to peer into someones home for 'press'. I have not found 1 reference in any of the founding fathers papers that says 'press' includes peering into peoples homes.
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Doesn't apply here.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If I can see you from the street without climbing a fence, tree or doing something else "out of the ordinary" than don't be surprised where pictures of you end up. It is not an invasion of privacy this woman is just trying to make some noise cause she obviously has nothing better to do with her time. What Google is doing with Streetview is great. I can't wait till they blanket the US. It is so much easier to find a place if you know what you are looking for.
WTF?
All true, but you missed out a few things, like that the law says that if you don't say anything right now under caution then that can be taken as evidence of guilt in court, that the PM is a paranoid wanker who thinks that passing laws to benefit himself and his cronies financially is perfectly ok (like changing the law about DNA retention whilst failing to mention a cabinet member was director of the main DNA profiling company) and that he is free to do as he likes "because I'm going soon" and so is determined to ram through yet another terror law (yes, I'm scared by the thought - a 7th in as many years) as well as a cunning plan to use the powers given to detain someone permanently without trial or oversight by using the idea that stalking is a mental illness. So show a little too much interest in the democratic process, and you could well be removed from it permanently. Meanwhile, the police push for yet more powers, and our few rights, so recently written down for the first time since they forgot about the Magna Carta, are deleted one by one.
If I knew then what I knew now, would I still feel this old?
Isn't this Google tool a commercial purpose? They're making money off of it (via the ads). And the page views are being enhanced because of your image being there--The whole "Check out this address because you can totally see a cat in the window."
Therefore, anyone who is photographed can sue because their image is being used for a commercial purpose without their written consent. While a few hundred lawsuit payouts won't damage Google's bottom line, it might become enough of an annoyance to make them stop.
Its not in a coma-- Privacy has cancer. It most likely will lead to Privacy's death. The name of one of Privacy's cancers is "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I care?"
Technology is changing the situation but laws ARE also being changed as well. The most powerful organizations (corporations / industry groups) have actively begun to undermine privacy because of its profit potential; which yes, is possible due to new technology. Even clear cut situations which are new have to be painfully tried out in the court system; where everybody just hopes they are not the first 'example' case.
Privacy will be a hot topic for many years to come even after the media chooses sides and stops reporting (not that they are doing well now.) It will drag out and the next generation will grow up less aware of what things used to be like, giving them a disadvantage to understanding our perspective.
Most privacy laws are restricted to government or region, and as the US government has already been doing- they get around any limitations they wish by a laundering process. Private organizations do this as well. Even if illegal, the system isn't currently capable of effective enforcement.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Why are Americans so darn scared and jumpy? I recently spent a couple months in the poor areas of South Africa (second highest violent crime rate in the world) and all I can say is that we worry and fret about our safety way, way way too much. I actually find the tendancy to worry, and the types of worry, to be amusing. Of course if they result in losing freedom or limiting useful innovations, then it's not so funny.
But it's basically like people seek out things to worry about. A useful trait when living in the wild maybe, but not so much today. If you have access to google maps and can worry about your cat visible in the window, you're probably one of the safest people to ever live.
Cheers.
It's all a matter of degree (and perhaps intent). There is not, and never has been, any absolute. If this woman doesn't want her cat or books to be seen, then she shouldn't be so careless as to have a window in that wall to expose them.
I'm as big a privacy advocate as anyone I know, but I don't see what the fuss is. If you don't want people to see something, don't have it out in broad daylight. There is absolutely no privacy interest in anything which is in plain view of the public. If you don't want pictures of your naked body taken through your window, don't walk around naked in your house or close your window. Google is not using any thermal imaging (I'd certainly be against it if they were) to see through walls. Your cat is seen in your window? Big deal. How is that going to get you raped or robbed? Please take me down that slippery slope, I'd like to understand, and if the logic makes sense I'm willing to change my mind. But as far as I can tell, it does not even IMPLICATE privacy for google to take a picture of the front of your house and put it on the internet (with a trillion other pictures). Anyone who drives down the street can see it and that's no different, let alone more intrusive, than riding down the virtual street on Google Maps and seeing it there. I don't understand what people are complaining of. And if it were the government doing it, all else equal, that wouldn't change my opinion (but I'd like to think the gov't has better uses of taxpayer money and manpower).
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Is the cat naked?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I think they are proving that we'll put up with invasions, one at a time. And you, thoughtful tho you seem to be, seem to be missing the point. NOW is the time for an industry leader to draw the line, and they've failed to do it. Who else will do what, when? How about all those traffic cameras? How about Wifi Enabled street lamps.. once the infrastructure is laid out, you can see this stuff pop up overnight
Which is why we are having this discussion today, NOT when the van actually went a-driving!
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
no link?
Did you read my inital post? I think street view is great AND they could have prevented this by just blurring or outlining, or hey - things PHD's do that i can't myself. There are lots of ways those images could be informative but not violate privacy, a win/win. That's not what's occuring, what's occuring is a bunch of people saying "Oh, not yet, that's not bad enough"
Why wait for privacy, when there are solutions (ahem automatic image editing) that could have been considered, and USED?
Why is this about black and white??
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
If their alignment software is really good that might work.
Even easier for the homeowner is to put a picture of The White House roof in their window - Google will blur it out for them.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm sorry but there is just too much GOOD USE for information to hold onto out-moded notions of privacy, as if it wasn't already very easy to track people, very soon you will be able to be tracked via satellite and other 'distant' and non intrusive technologies all the time.
Sorry but technology + Private sextor interest in the most accurate "market data" (i.e. personal information, habits, likes, dislikes, level of education, income, etc).
Privacy is being squeezed out by private corporate interests, ironically if Orwell was still alive today he would see it's not just the government we should be afraid but the market and the businesses (corporations) themselves.
Sorry, but when it comes to visible wavelengths of light, or radio transmissions, or anything else of that nature, you cannot control it except to block the source.
You don't like a picture of your cat in a wnidow being taken, then close your blinds. The FCC states otherwise that emitted frequencies (visible or invisible) that make it to public proeprty may be used by anyone.
To stop your "invasion" of privacy, you can block the emitted wavelengths of visible light by drawing your curtains and shutting your blinds. This is a complete non-issue.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I'm a privacy nut. I'm the kind of guy that has and uses a 47 character semi-random password for everything I don't need to access so often that that becomes a pain in the ass (everything I do need to regularly access I use a 14 character completely random password on.)
But even I will say this is bullshit.
If she wants her privacy, close the blinds. It's that simple. How is it any different from someone driving down the street and looking in her window? It's not.
I actually saw someone freaking out that you could read license plates with the service. COME ON! Drive down the street. You can read the license plate of every car near you. How is it any different if it's posted online?
Get over it, and if you're that concerned about your privacy, get some blinds or something.
Complete bullshit. You cannot and should not expect to be _given_ rights by other people. You must _take_ those rights. In the case of the right to privacy, that means blocking the view of things you don't want seen. Rights do not exist unless they are exercised. And exercising your right to privacy means keeping things private.
Oh, and people are only complaining because it's Google. I seem to recall Microsoft releasing the exact same service several months ago, and nobody said a thing.
If the government hires a private contractor, then that contractor becomes an agent of the government and is thus subject to the bill of rights.
;)
Two examples:
1. The FBI hires someone to break into your house and see what's going on. He sees that you are growing marijuana and reports this back to the FBI. That evidence would be thrown out by the judge because it was obtained illegally.
2. Your landlord enters your house (even if he doesn't give proper notice and enters illegally) and sees that you are growing marijuana. He calls the cops. You are busted and will be in jail for a long time (5 years mandatory minimum in my state).
Better make sure you treat your landlord well, hmm?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
If you didn't expect the neighbor's 15 year old son to peep on your nude sunbathing, then you know absolutely nothing of 15 year old boys.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Interesting. My parents just bought a house and we were driving by one house that they didn't bid on. Same neighborhood, similar house. But it had a huge 10' x 15' window facing the street.
They didn't want to live in a fishbowl, so they didn't bid on the home.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
We called 'em freshmeat.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
You're the dolt, but thanks for falling victim to your own logic. There are two parts to your probability estimation, it's called Risk Management. We assign weights to the outcomes as well as their probabilities. So while it may be unlikely that event A happens, if the failure is catastrophic then we assign it a higher weight in determining a response. So it's more likely google will cause you some harm by invading your privacy, but the harm is likely to be minor. Whereas it *may* (and I'll get to this in a moment) be less likely that the government causes you some harm through an invasion of privacy, the potential harm is many times greater, thus it is to be avoided.
In addition one must consider the scale of the two entities here, one is a corporation that can only collect information on you if you interact with it in some way. If you don't use google or google products then you are many many times less likely to even be in their databases. This is not so with the government, participation with them is MANDATORY. You must register as a citizen, pay taxes (income, sales, property, etc), as well as licensing for various activities like driving or owning a gun. So we see that google's footprint in your daily life is tiny compared to the government which you come into contact with every day in many many ways. Additionally government data is shared among many institutions and affects everything from your ability to vote, to holding a job, being allowed to drive or travel, or even in some cases it can affect one's ability to live in certain areas. Merely a few examples of how a government record can affect one's day to day life much more profoundly than data residing on google servers.
The government also is not a static entity, and history has taught us time and again throughout all cultures that unchecked a government will strive to increase its own power and control over a populace. While recent US administrations may have been "nice" there is no guarantee that future ones will continue to respect the rights of the people. The point is that the government has the TOOLS the MEANS and the MANPOWER to affect ones life in many more ways, at many more places, and with much greater effect than anything google could ever hope to achieve short of google becoming a government-sized entity in and of itself.
Note that I am NOT saying the sky is falling here. Interesting that your reaction to people arguing against your baseless claims is for you to respond that we are UFO nuts who are afraid of sharks. Wow, great fucking logic. I am NOT afraid of some stupid Hollywood men in black scenario, or some shadowy CIA agent targeting me as the fall-guy for some elaborate government scheme. It doesn't have to be that nefarious or complicated or unlikely an event for the government to completely mess up one's life. Want some day to day examples? How about the TSA no-fly list. How many innocent civilians are restricted from flying, or at the very least must undergo hours of interrogations every time they want to travel simply because their name or birth date is *similar* to some suspected terrorist name on the list. This happens hundreds of times every day across the country. Similar lists are also coming into use, like no-sell lists for sensitive equipment or chemicals/fertilizers, or even one state recently (can't recall which) that proposed a no-gun-sale list. All of these lists lack any sort of oversight committee that provides a way for ordinary citizens to have the information corrected or their names removed after presenting evidence that they aren't terrorists. And in the case of the no-gun sale list there was no due process for having one's name placed on the list! That means that someone's second amendment rights could be removed without due process. So people are stuck with large inconveniences or just plain can't use those services. That's just one example. How about an unpaid traffic ticket? Or lost vehicle registration renewal? Just this month my girlfriend's brother was in an minor accident and the respo
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Must be an old picture. Check out the gas prices down the street.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
...most of my city (Rosario, Argentina, 1M people) is still shown with an outdated, 10 year old picture...
Got Pike?
I guess I can sympathize a little with her. I noticed that Google Earth loaded new, higher rez images of my city recently. With the new images I was able to clearly pick out my car at work out of hundreds. It does raise some interesting questions. On the other hand, that's why we have curtains.
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.
People honestly have nothing better to do than cry about a non existant issue Its not google descend down the side of buildings and take photos thru the window.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Fair point, have to say I hadn't seen that.
But if you back up a few seconds you can still see...
THIS
Ramen
This is not true. It is like saying that we either have the freedom to say anything we want any time or we don't have freedom of speech. It is about reasonable restraint, a.k.a. common sense. You cannot start calling people and telling them that you are a representative of their congressman and you will kill them if he is not reelected. That prohibition doesn't mean that you don't have freedoms that matter.
Locally, we have the right to let twelve citizens decide our fate. Ask them if there is a difference between climbing trees, using telephoto lenses, using UV lenses and similar tatics to sell to gossip magazines, versus publishing one shot in thousands that happens to show what is inside of an unobscured clearly lit window.
Prefer the Big Brother argument? This is a company, the people you're concerned about are the government. If you want the government to limit itself, then pick a topic. Is it:
A.) The government shouldn't watch you
B.) Nobody should be allowed to record you
There is no:
C.) Nobody should be allowed to record you because the government might at some point want to watch you and it is only a matter of time before a company like google using pictures with accidental content causes other companies to start spying on you and the government to decide to monitor its citizens in invasive ways.
Actually, I guess there is a C, which seems to be the argument you make, but it sounds silly when stated directly doesn't it?
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Wow. I'm not sure how to reply to your post, because I don't think most of your post was a reply to anything I actually wrote in my post.
Well, no, it's not, is it? It might be like saying that either we have the freedom to say anything we want at any time or we don't, but even that is more black-and-white in practice than what I wrote. What you wrote is like saying that either my favourite colour is blue or I like to go swimming.
In fact, I've never argued for absolute freedom of speech; check my posting history. My position on rights and responsibilities in general is that they come together, that rights should never be given up lightly, but that sometimes it is necessary to balance some rights of one person with some other rights of another. That last case is where things get difficult, because inevitably in such a conflict someone will wind up losing a right that in general we hold to be a good thing.
I'm afraid I don't really know where your government vs. company stuff comes from. OK, I gave one example mentioning the British government, but the issues of privacy and the dangers of data mining that I raised are general principles, and apply to everything from governments using them to damage political opponents through to supermarkets using them to work out how to get away with overcharging their customers most efficiently.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I am not new here and did not expect one.
I didn't look at your posting history, I rarely look at anyone's but I don't doubt you.
I think I do disagree with you on the statement:
Clearly, for me, there is a difference between snapping a picture in which someone's window is incidental versus one in which the interior is deliberate.I'm trying not to misquote, but selecting the portions I'm replying to for brevity.
Again, no, I don't think that statement is rational. Allowing people, citizens in particular but by extension companies, to take pictures that are not deliberately invasive, does not force people to allow real privacy invasion, and most certainly not something that "goes beyond" it.The freedom of speech is an easy analogy, but let me rephrase since it caused a red herring: Having a right or expectation of privacy is by no means encroached by allowing the causal photograph of your dwelling to be published. It is not a loss of rights, it is a common sense allowance for normal acceptable behavior.
The government vs corporation stuff came from the British government reference. I took your inclusion of it to be a paralleling of the two situations, which is the only reason I could imagine you would mention it. Of course, if you were pointing out that privacy invasion was far more likely in British surveillance than from something as casual as a google snapshot, then I obviously missed your point. Somehow, still I doubt that was the intent.
Incidentally, I appreciate people who don't share my viewpoint but are able to express themselves clearly with reasoned arguments. I don't like to refer to them the same way as I do people I agree with, so I call them foes and set my preferences to give them a bonus point so I am more likely to read their opinion. I'm marking you foe because I seem to disagree with you, but you're lucid and thoughtful and I'd like to see more of that in general.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
I'm not sure we really do disagree as much as you suggest. For example, I would agree that there is a difference between an incidental occurrence of a window in a photograph and a photograph that shows in detail the contents of a private home viewed through that window, if that's what you mean.
One thing we do seem to disagree on is the intent issue. To me, it doesn't matter whether someone deliberately violated someone else's privacy, or did so only inadvertently. The privacy was still violated, and the same data about someone's private life/space is still available as a consequence.
The other thing I suspect we disagree on is the "common sense allowance" point. While I am generally a pragmatist about these things, I think the rules of the privacy game are changing fundamentally with the ability to store and data mine huge repositories of personal information. What might be an innocent, incidental, inconsequential invasion of privacy in isolation can become much more than that when combined with other such minor invasions using modern technology. Thus while I might have called "no harm, no foul" a few years ago, I increasingly take the view that the presumption should be absolute respect for privacy, and it is the reasonable exceptions that should then be given explicitly (e.g., taking a picture that incidentally shows the outside of someone's home, which is visible to anyone from a public place at any time, but not any detail through the windows, which I think most people would agree is private).
As a final point, the British government example was in response to accusations of paranoia by another poster. My point in the example was that people said the same about isolated CCTV cameras a few years ago. Now, we have 4 million of them, ANPR cameras monitoring the roads, facial recognition technology being trialled, and suddenly the government really does have a system that can effectively track much of the movement of the entire population and record it forever. There is nothing paranoid about thinking this is open to abuse, as any Holocaust survivor (or British Muslim, perhaps?) can testify.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Here is another site that has a large selection of StreetView finds: http://www.mapmole.com/
Uh, what? Did *you* read your own post? It was about overblown privacy invasions that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. I don't know what constitutes more of a "black and white" viewpoints more than "drawing a line," as you suggested should be done by an "industry leader."
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.