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?'"

Comments

Bizarre and hysterical rant

[shankarunni]

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..

Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant

[Rakishi]

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.

Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant

[computational super]

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.

Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant

[Woundweavr]

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).

Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant

[hardburn]

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.

Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant

[drx]

"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.

Yet another panic-y article from no-clue crowd

[Em Ellel]

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

Re:Yet another panic-y article from no-clue crowd

[betterunixthanunix]

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).

Re:Yet another panic-y article from no-clue crowd

[flyingsquid]

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.

But it's so static...

[ecloud]

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.

Big difference

[NewAndFresh]

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.

Fear and power dichotomy

[spleen_blender]

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.

TFA is rather myopic

[avronius]

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

TOTALLY different than "big brother".

[TheDarkener]

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??

What a load.

[Penguin Programmer]

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.

Orwell and the modern state

[end15]

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.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?

[glyn.phillips]

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.