Slashdot Mirror


Google Street a Slice of Dystopian Future?

An anonymous reader writes "According to a recent CNET article, Google Street View 'is just wrong'. The short piece which makes up part of a larger feature about 'technology that's just wrong' goes on to explain that Google Street View is like a scene from George Orwell's terrifying dystopian vision of 1984 and that it could ultimately change our behaviour because we'll never know when we're being watched. 'Google? Aren't they the friendly folk who help me find Web sites, cheat at pub quizzes, and look at porn? Yes, but since 2006 they're also photographing the streets of selected world cities and posting the results online for all to see. It was Jeremy Bentham who developed the idea of the Panopticon, a system of prison design whereby everybody could be seen from one central point, with the upshot being that prisoners learnt to modulate their behaviour — because they never knew if they were being watched. And that doesn't sound like much fun, does it?'"

31 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Bizarre and hysterical rant by shankarunni · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love it when arts majors try to emulate Orwell and struggle hard to dream up "dystopian" scenarios in anything and everything to appear sophisticated in the eyes of their colleagues..

    God only knows we are living in dystopian times, with our society under attack from left, right, and corporate interests which don't fit into any pat category..

    But Google street view is hardly a "live view" where neighbors snoop upon each other. It's just a one-time snapshot of a spot. If you happen to be bonking someone on the street just at that moment, and don't want your face (or whatever) on camera, tough. Do it indoors..

    1. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm more of a breast man...

      But if your windows are open, people are free to look in. I love the jump from Cat on window sill to 'knowing what I am reading'.
      Logical fallacy for the WIN!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. If google can see into your window from street level then so can anyone else. Amazingly google is not the only entity in the universe with cameras and I'm sure a lot of people make it a "hobby" to take picture through open windows. Hell the "looking into neighbors windows with telescope" thing has been around for how many decades now as a TV plot point.
      2. If you sunbathe in public then see point 1 as well.

    3. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by Otto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If your curtains are open, then you do not have an expectation of privacy.

      How about closing your curtains when you want to be private and not closing them when you don't? What's so hard about that? Your privacy is completely under your control.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by computational+super · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I often wonder about what will become of all of this. Typically, when somebody starts dicsussing the "Big Brother sees all" dystopian future, somebody else retorts with the classic "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" rhetoric. Since it seems clear that, ultimately, we're going to end up in this position no matter what we do, I wonder which part will change... will we all end up in fear, or will we all end up with nothing to hide?

      It seems to me that there are a lot of things that all of us do which, although we may not be afraid of an execution or a prison term if we get caught, we would at the very least be embarrassed about if exposed. A lot of our social mores and most "morality"-based laws tend to persist because the chances of getting caught are so slim. Perhaps society will, unexpectedly, end up changing for the better overall if everything is out in the open - if everybody gets caught doing everything, we might suddenly end up getting a lot more reasonable about what we care about catching each other doing.

      Obviously, that's not going to work for you and me - we're too used to things the way they are. But since it looks like our grandchildren's generation isn't going to understand the very meaning of the word "privacy", I can only hope that the end result is a world where you don't really need any.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    5. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by Woundweavr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If my curtains are open and I see someone I have the option of closing them or calling the cops. I can expect privacy in my own home. With the Google van driving by unknown to me how do I close my curtains?

      In the same manner you would if you don't see someone? If your enacting of 'privacy' is reactive, its your own fault. If I leave my fly down and someone sees my X-men underwear and then I zip up my fly, I don't see how that is more or less a violation of privacy than if I don't notice someone seeing them or if I walk past a security camera.

      I don't even putting it on the intertubes makes a difference. If that security camera caught sight of a bank robber that appears on the frame at the same time as you, and the tape goes online and the world can see your fly is down, thats too bad. If you can be seen from public, especially if a depiction of you is secondary and you just happen to be recorded along with the primary information, its tough nuggies. You don't have a right to privacy while in public. The same applies to looking in an open window from public space (in this case, the street).
    6. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by techpawn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If your curtains are open, then you do not have an expectation of privacy.
      And that actually plays into the article. We feel we must ALWAYS keep our curtains drawn or that we're being watched and if that the curtains are drawn that something naughty or wrong is taking place behind them.

      What takes place is my home is my business, windows open or not. You should not be looking in unless you want other looking in your home as well. If we've reached that point then it's too late and google is the least of our worries.
      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    7. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by hardburn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People also have the right to be able to walk down any dark alley in the world and not get mugged. However, we can't reasonably expect this.

      If you want a reasonable expectation of privacy, shut your blinds.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    8. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You wanna find the google girls, do ya own leg work... Why should I? Isn't finding things easily exactly the thing Google is supposed to be good at?

      I say Google should team up with the Cyber-Goggles inventors and make the street view searchable at the object level.

      :)

    9. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by Rakishi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let me repeat it once again for the idiots in the audience: google is not the only entity in the universe that has cameras and the ability to post images on the web. Actually nearly every person can do so now due to the glory of cameras in cell phones. If you think that before people weren't taking such images (and much worse images) and posting them online then you're a blind fool.

    10. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're making a rather strained assumption, namely that technology will always overpower individuals' attempts to retain or preserve their privacy using the same sort of technologies that destroys them in the first place. And I don't think there's any evidence for that. There will always be ways to hide things you don't want others to know about; in fact I'd argue that technology offers a lot more ways of living out your fantasies without anyone (who knows you in real life) knowing, than in some hypothetical Luddite world.

      Privacy isn't going away, it's just changing. The only people who are going to "lose" any privacy are those who are too inflexible to move with the change and use the technology to preserve their privacy. It's the people who think that just because they don't see any big honking TV cameras with lights, that what they're doing or saying won't end up on the evening news or YouTube. That might have been a good assumption once, but it's not good now. However, technology also gives you lots of ways to shoot your mouth off anonymously, if you wish. The name of the game is choosing the appropriate venue in light of the technology.

      I don't really think this is a new or unique situation. When people started moving in from rural areas into the cities, they inevitably faced a loss of some assumed privacies. If you live in a house in the middle of the woods, you can walk around in your back yard in your birthday suit and be pretty confident that nobody's going to see you. You can't stand on your balcony in a highrise and be confident of the same thing. People adapted; their ideas of where it was safe to assume that they have privacy changed. And life moved on, perhaps even arguably for the better (if you're an urbanite, anyway). In return for living in the city, a whole lot of things that wouldn't have been possible to do without attracting a lot of attention or censure in a small town are now possible.

      I see that as being a fairly good example of what's happening to the world in general as it becomes more connected and incorporates more information technology. Some old ideas of 'privacy' will become less than relevant, but to new generations who grow up in that environment, it will have entirely new definitions. They will never assume that you can get your mail in your underwear without the world watching, but they'll never know that it wasn't always considered intrusive to 'out' someone's real name online.

      The only risk in all this is that, as the technology develops, we might allow untrustworthy people too much access to it -- in the form of wiretap or anti-encryption laws, for instance -- that will hamper the creation of new private spaces even as old ones are rendered obsolete and irrelevant by technology. That strikes me as a real danger and one that we have to be vigilant about. No amount of security is worth turning over the keys to what will increasingly be huge portions of our lives to authorities, however innocuous or beneficent they may seem today.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    11. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by drx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "People knowing something" is not binary. I might not be concerned about my neighbours seeing something and the very low chance of a stranger seeing it. But when there is the possibility of exposing this action to the whole world, persons will act different.

      It is about calculating risks. The _possibility_ of constant surveillance changes the situation.

      And ... it is not about committing murder having sex in front of the camera. It is about sunbathing, dancing in front of the mirror, smoking etc.

      And ... yes, Google doing it is different from neighbours with a camera doing it. Of course technically it is the same, "somebody takes images and puts them on the web". But the rate of exposure of these images matters, and the source they are coming from. Google is "credible", has gazillions of users and does a great job of interlinking its services. That is different from some photo that rots somewhere on imagebucket.

      I don't say it is all that bad and the end of the world, but it strikes me how such development is just accepted with binary logic: So you don't like people see you doing something, don't do it. But that is exactly the panoptic effect.

    12. Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant by computational+super · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We must protect our privacy

      Well, you make it sound like there's anything you or I or anybody else can do about it. I don't think there is, not any more. I'm not saying I'm OK with it, I just wonder what the privacyless future is going to look like - if it's going to be as bad as most people think or maybe a little less bad.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  2. Yet another panic-y article from no-clue crowd by Em+Ellel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One picture in 6 mos to a year video surveillance does not make. Now those ATM and security cameras that have been around for 20 plus years EVERYWHERE are not scary, but GOOGLE's once a year picture - now thats BIG BROTHER for you... Dodos..

    -Em

    --
    RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    1. Re:Yet another panic-y article from no-clue crowd by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference, as far as I can tell, is that Google's pictures are available to everyone, whereas the ATM cameras are not (coincidentally, many security cameras' feeds can be found on Google).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Yet another panic-y article from no-clue crowd by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Even in the USA, you are on camera way more than you think. Police cars record 24/7 now. stores, malls, parking lots, street corners.. Cameras are everywhere watching you.

      The problem isn't surveillance, it's people abusing information gained through surveillance. The solution is to make sure that there are checks on those people tasked with watching security footage to make sure they're not using any of that information in an inappropriate fashion. And the simplest, fastest, cheapest way to do that is to install a surveillance camera in the office of the people who watch surveillance footage.

    3. Re:Yet another panic-y article from no-clue crowd by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your downplaying of the red-light and speeding cameras but criticism of Google Street View is rather backwards.

      Not at all. As I said before, most law-enforcement cameras can only be accessed by law enforcement officials. The general public can't just go to a well-known website and pull up any given red-light camera to see what's going on in that intersection. With Street View anybody on the entire planet from you and me to anybody in the CIA to the leaders of Korea, Iraq, etc. could simply go to google.com and potentially see you scratching your ass nude in your living room if the Google camera cars just so happen to be driving by your house at the right time. There's a huge difference between a small number of authorized people viewing images from red-light cameras and the whole world seeing inside your house because Google's cameras are able to capture that image as they do a drive-by.

  3. But it's so static... by ecloud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A van drives down the streets once and takes pictures. Maybe in a few years they'll do that again. Now if you happened to be in one of them maybe you'd have some feelings about that, but one snapshot of you every few years hardly amounts to a surveillance society.

    Why aren't people more optimistic? This is a sort of poor telepresence: you can get a small part of the experience of traveling to some cities without actually going there.

  4. Big difference by NewAndFresh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The difference between 1984 and Google is that google allows anybody to view the street.
    Sorry, google just doesn't feel like "big brother." Nor does it seem to be going in that direction.

    --
    Welcome to Costco, I love you.
  5. Fear and power dichotomy by spleen_blender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What value is a face with no name, or a street on which you know not a single person? Data only has value when used in conjunction with known facts, and the only people in the end who are going to be burned by such knowledge are the ones who reject it instead of learning how to use it for their own and other peoples' benefits.

    Furthermore, at least google has its images of public space open for people to view at all times. If you wanted to look through a government owned public camera do you know where to go, who to ask? Can you even get permission to observe those feeds? There is always a bigger bogeyman lurking around each corner, so at least meet him on your own terms instead of waiting for him to come at you when you least expect it.

  6. TFA is rather myopic by avronius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've flipped through the article and the little pictures. It would seem that the authors are trying to put an "It Came From The Deep" feeling against technology [and materials] that they don't currently see a market for or appreciate the market force behind. It's not unusual for people to fear things that they don't understand.

    It is, however, unusual for a Tech publication to attempt to use fearmongering as a tool to bring attention to technology that their writers don't fully understand.

    I can only hope that this piece was not meant to reflect that attitude of all of the writers over at cnet - it's certainly not flattering.

    - Avron

    1. Re:TFA is rather myopic by tool462 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they were just trying to get linked on Slashdot. *shrug*

  7. Not google's fault by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For decades, corporations and government have had the technology to watch us. Google has allowed normal people to see that kind of data. We can now not only see personal details about each other, but also spy on our bosses and "leaders". Google (and search/database technology in general) has an amazing democratic potential.

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
  8. Have you ever... by Jikrschbaum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    had a job where you need to drive somewhere you have no clue what the landmarks are etc. As a field tech, street view is a nice bonus. When I can use it I use it. If it reduces my blood pressure a couple points then maybe I get to live an extra year. And besides it is hardly real-time. I don't see protests of businesses that put webcams in their store fronts.

  9. TOTALLY different than "big brother". by TheDarkener · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google is giving access to StreetView (and pretty much every other service) to EVERYONE. This is NOT the same as some big-brother, 1984 scenario.

    Don't you think you would change your mind, maybe just a little bit, if all the surveillance cameras in the UK had a website that allowed you to view everyone, just like the "watchers" ?

    My problem is, and always has been, that certain people think they are "higher above" others. That's why you get the classic public "surveillance", where a select few watchers have access to all of the cameras, and no one else.

    But what if everyone had access to it? I would be totally for that. It would even the playing field. Not that there's any game to play, but at least we have access to the same technology the big-brother "watchers" had, and that makes me feel like I'm not so much under a microscope, but part of a community.

    Google Street Views is NOT the one to attack. Google is doing everything the right way - they're giving us ALL access to information. Isn't that what we want??

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  10. Don't worry it's not the end of the world. by Higaran · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe it's me but I fail to see how a map so advanced that you can actually see the building you want to go to is bad. Also the whole purpose is not to monitor people, unlike the camera's that the city of Chicago is putting up at pretty much every intersection. It's not like the images from the van's are uploaded instantly and they have one on every block of the city. It really annoys me when people always look at every tech like it's going to be skynet or 1984, tech is basically to make our lives better, that some of it is used for our own survalence then thats just an unfortunte side effect.

  11. What a load. by Penguin+Programmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You've got to be kidding me. Anyone who thinks that Google Street View is like 1984 is a moron.

    There are two enormous differences between Google Street View and Big Brother:
    1) Google takes pictures for street view every now and then. It's by no means real-time. If someone looks up my address and sees me out mowing my lawn, the only thing they know is that sometime in the past year, I mowed my lawn.
    2) Google takes pictures only in public places. Guess what, everyone can see you there anyway, and in many cities you're probably already on an actually live video feed. You're not being watched any more than you already were!

    Are there really no better conspiracy theories to post today? Come on.

    1. Re:What a load. by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      [blockquote] Guess what, everyone can see you there anyway[/blockquote]

      Except under normal circumstances, everyone can't see you. When you are "public view", only the people in the near vicinity can see you, and that's the expectation that you have. In a lot of situations you would certainly behave differently if you had the expectation that EVERYONE, from your mother to the police could see you.

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
  12. Orwell and the modern state by end15 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IMHO we already live in a dystopian future. It's not exactly Orwellian in nature at this point and it seems that a more critical distinction would need to be made. I don't think that Orwell's control systems were simply about technology, it was much more about how the state used the technology. In San Francisco there are already cameras all over the place. Everything we do is already tracked. Your cell phone has a GPS built into it that can track you at all times. That tracking information may never disappear and could be used now or any time in the future. I'm not saying throw your cell phone out but be aware of what you already have committed to. That said I think it's important that we recognize how the technology is currently used, how it's been abused in the past, and how it could be abused in the future. In the case of 1984 Winston Smith did not have access to the technology, he was only subject to it. In our case we are subjects of the technology but we still have access to it. That alone is an important distinction, and belies a very different program (we're more interesting to marketers than spies). I think it's important to questions Google or any other entity that further erodes privacy in any manner. Who's using it? How is it being used? Can we choose to opt out? When and where can we choose to opt out? Is this patently invasive technology or not? For instance when the NSA hires/forces/steals Googles information on citizens domestically then the use issue becomes something important for the republic to question. I think it's important to get away from our impulsive reactionary response to "Orwellian Future" and start thinking critically about what we are really dealing with. Orwell would write a very different book if he were alive today, and we should start thinking in those terms.

    --
    All glory to the Hypnotoad!
  13. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy? by glyn.phillips · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since when do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are visible from a public street?

    I'm going to take a wild guess here: Some folks have never lived in a small town.

  14. Dystopian future? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    God only knows we are living in dystopian times

    "Dystopian" is relative. Compared to my youth, yes. Compared to my Grandpa's youth and all times before, no.

    Since mankind's past is dystopian, why shouldn't the future be?

    But wait - we already live a utopian future, at least most of us in an industrial country. We have pleasures and gadgets and things kings of old couldn't even dream of! 100kph surface travel, flight, far fewer deadly diseases, refrigeration, television, telephones, you name it.

    We don't burn people at the stake, most civiliced nations don't execute anyone, etc.

    Yes, there is a struggle between those who want libetry and privacy, and those who want to amass personal wealth and power, but the second group hasn't yet won. Thet struggle has probably been going on since before we became homo sapiens.

    Compared to generations before mine we live in utopia. To quote Max Yasgur at Woodstock, "we must be in heaven, man!"

    As to Google maps, I agree with you and don't see how still pictures are going to invade your privacy unless one of these cameras catches you picking your nose or scratching your balls. A bigget threat to your privacy is the cameras that are everywhere now - red light cameras, ATM cameras, hell there's some Orwell style cameras on 5th street here in Springfield to keep people from pissing in the alleyways, sans the "big brother is watching" signs.

    It's a little late to worry about Google street, here in Springfield anyway.

    -mcgrew

    PS- I was an art major, you insensitive clod!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest