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

[Archangel Michael]

"Yeah, but wasn't there something a while back about google street also getting snaps in as high as second story windows and of girls sunbathing?"

Citation Needed .... and Pictures if possible.

Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant

[Chyeld]

You obviously aren't a member of the Illuminati or you'd know of the secret live update version of Google Street. In fact, this version is so powerful, it's not limited to streets.

I'm watching you right now.

JESUS! Will you put a shirt on that back?

Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant

[vertinox]

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.

Actually, Google Street View has a "report" option that lets users report obscene happenings or persons faces that don't want to be on the site.

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

[teslar]

JESUS! Will you put a shirt on that back?

How do you know my name? The only place in here where that's written down is in my underw.... oh.

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.

Re:Bizarre and hysterical rant

[Z34107]

Please disseminate this knowledge across my campus.

I live in a dorm that has two wings - one for the men, one for the women, and a common lounge/entrance/exit in the middle connecting them. Makes sense, right?

The dorm is U-shaped, (Men-> |_| <-Women from the Google satellite view) and the women never seem to close their shades.

Not that I mind, of course, but it's bad if I forget to close my blinds when friends or parents visit. The view can be interesting at certain times...

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

[jandrese]

Or, heck, you can just go to London and be on camera 24/7 outside of your flat.

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

[Lumpy]

Yup, funny that they think that the 24/7 video system in the UK is not big brother esque.

Honestly anyone that is at all interested in privacy have been screaming and yelling for over a decade now. suddenly some guy that has had his head in the sand realizes that things have changed and screams the sky is falling is newsworthy?

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.

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.

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

[Iphtashu Fitz]

One picture in 6 mos to a year video surveillance does not make.

True, but it only takes one picture to embarrass somebody, to catch a crime in progress, or to simply show an individual in a location where they're rather it not be known they are. Many people are already aware that Street View captured the results of more than one automobile accidents. How would you like to be immortalized for riding your bike down the street, unaware that Google just snapped a picture of you showing your jeans riding down your backside?

Security cameras like those in ATM's have very limited visibility & range, and most people know they are there. The contents of those tapes also aren't generally available to the public. They most likely would need a court order to obtain. How would you like it if the whole world could simply go to Google and see a photograph of you walking into a motel with a prostitute, leaving a strip club, getting mugged on the side of the street, or caught in the act of accidentally hitting somebody in a crosswalk with your car? It's that kind of publicity that most people are concerned about.

Given that Google, MSN, etc. are doing this I bet it's just a matter of time before police start mounting cameras on their patrol cars as a means to identify illegal behavior that the officers in the car might miss. How would you like to get a ticket in the mail a week after a police car driving by takes a photo of you jaywalking? That's the sort of thing this could eventually lead to, and that's not what most people want.

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

[moderatorrater]

And the simplest, fastest, cheapest way to [monitor those monitoring surveillance video] that is to install a surveillance camera in the office of the people who watch surveillance footage. That's an infinite loop just waiting to happen...

Ok for now

[Idiomatick]

Google takes a photo like once every 6months. You are NOT being watched. It is NOT a spy camera. You should NOT be doing anything bad visible from the street. If you are jerking off outside on main street as a giant van with cameras rolls by. Well i'm sorry, your well kept secret is out. Points are:

A: They do it from a perfectly public location that many people will pass daily.
B: It is not a surprise, they aren't using spy technology it is a giant google van.
C: No laws are broken, why gang up on google about it, bring it to the house and see what happens (i can't imagine taking pictures outdoors being made illegal).

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.

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

No need to RTFA

[Phylarr]

Since the whole damn thing is contained in the summary.

It would be nice if the authors had explained why they thought they had a right to privacy when in public, or whether they believed that Google was taking pictures inside people's houses. But I guess a fear mongering rant was what they were in the mood for instead.

A Pointless Rant

[timholman]

This CNET article misses the point entirely. Google is not, and never will be, the problem. The problem is going to be the following:

(1) The local city government monitoring your car at every intersection and every stretch of road, and mailing you a ticket every time you exceed the speed limit by 5 mph or fail to beat the red light by 0.01 seconds. Go drive around the Phoenix suburbs and you'll see your future. You can pick up half a dozen robo-tickets just driving to the local mall and back.

(2) Every local business and every neighbor on your street recording you every time you go out for a stroll or take your dog for a walk.

(3) Your own spouse/parents/children/significant other putting you under 24/7 surveillance without your knowledge "for your own good".

The "Death of Privacy" scenario is inevitable, thanks to Moore's Law. And it won't be Google or the federal government doing most of the watching - it will be your family members, or the people in your neighborhood, or the folks running the local business nearby, or the city councilperson you voted for, because every one of them will rationalize that no one is really being hurt, and because the technology will make it so easy to do that they won't be able to resist the temptation. You won't be able to stop this trend any more than the RIAA and MPAA can stop unauthorized digital distribution of music and movies.

Re:A Pointless Rant

[blhack]

(1) The local city government monitoring your car at every intersection and every stretch of road, and mailing you a ticket every time you exceed the speed limit by 5 mph or fail to beat the red light by 0.01 seconds. Go drive around the Phoenix suburbs and you'll see your future. You can pick up half a dozen robo-tickets just driving to the local mall and back. This is a safety problem.
I live in Old Town Scottsdale (a phoenix suburb with lots of shops and bars and stuff that you can actually *WALK* to) so i do a lot of walking around intersections and stuff. All of the intersections have those red light cameras on them, and there is almost ALWAYS a photo radar van parked somewhere around old town.
When people see these things, they stop paying attention to anything that is going on around them EXCEPT for the van/camera/light.
What is more dangerous?
Somebody running a red light by a half a second or so, or somebody stomping down on their Huge lifted escalade (uhg..) to try and speed up and make it through the yellow light without getting a ticket.

Tempe (another suburb, home to ASU) is even WORSE. They recently installed stationary cameras on Rural(scottsdale rd) just north of University. Anybody from this area knows that this is one of the busiest areas in tempe (traffic wise). It is the main route into and out of ASU.
Well, when you're in thick traffic, driving 50mph, and suddenly the person who is just in town visiting sees the camera and slams on the brakes all the way down to 20mph without any warning (except brakelights) it causes accidents.
Lots of them.

When did we get to vote on this matter?
And who the hell voted FOR it?

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.

I used it in a class.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The lecture went "hahaha - we all know know about surveillance, right??? So, let's pretend I'm tired of living here and I want to move back home. let's look at realtor.com - I'll need a place to live. Oh look - a nice house in the neighbourhood I want. Cool. click on that, and oh - look - the interior of the place is photographed. Nice kitchen - big bathroom. Ugly carpet, but I can change that. And that credenza? Urp - that'll have to go. But that's OK. Now - let's see what the neighbourhood is like. Excellent. Google Street goes right by the place. so we'll enter the address and look wher ewe are. Oh - we're right in front of the building. nice - and look! The PEOPLE ARE MOVING OUT OF THE HOUSE. There's the moving van parked right in front. Excellent! And there's the neighbour - I recognise him because I used to live around the block from here back in the late 90s. Cool..."

At this point the class (a mass lecture of 150) got quiet...

"Oh, and look in his window! See that lamp? The guy who lived upstairs from me used to own that, and he gave to the guy who lives there. I remember that - it's a nice lamp and it was a great day. We all sat around drinking beer. Oh - just like the guy down on the corner over there."

We zoom down the street to the corner.

"Yeah - I recognise him - lousy stupid drunk. Really bad attitude. Never liked him."

"So that was fun, wasn't it kids? Dropping in on their lives, looking into their homes? Nice. so, now let's open up a new tab and I'll type in http://www.opentopia.com/hiddencam.php and look here - links to CCTs we can look through. Excellent. Click on this one, and look - we get CONTROLS- we can move and zoom the camera. Looks like we're in some university, similar to this one, but it looks like a very different time zone. Hhhhm... Let's zoom in on those kids over there. Look - one of them is picking his nose. Pig..."

The class got REALLY QUIET...

"And now, let's type in a some search criteria, like "inurl: view/index.shtml?videos=one" and look - an entire list of open cameras. Let's look at this one. Cool. People working in a call centre in Argentina. WORK YOU LOSERS! WORK!!! WORK HARDER!!! MAKE ME RICH!!! Hahaha! funny isn't it?"

No one laughed. People were squirming as we went from one private scene to another.

"OK - so today we're going to watch portions of some hollywood entertainment fodder. It's called "The Truman Show"."

They watched it with new eyes. They were guilty. They had sinned. We had gone from "isn't this interesting" to the "global panopticon" with a visceral sense of what surveillance really is as we watched people work, scratch themselves, goof off, pick their noses, BE HUMAN BEINGS.

RESIST THE SURVEILLANCE STATE. TAKE YOUR SPACE BACK FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY.

It's not that Google Street is evil, it's not that a CCT in an airport is evil. It's not that a CCT in a parking lot is evil. But in aggregate, it is evil, and Google is not helping.

RS