Everything you've searched for, everything they've aggregated from public records, every mail you sent with gmail. And the issue isn't tracking, but if Street View saw you entering a brothel they could blackmail you if wanted.
I know this sounds paranoid but so is THE GOVERNMENT IS WATCHING ME DOING MY SHOPPING SO I CAN'T ORGANIZE A RESISTANCE.
No, the point is that there are a bunch of videos you can watch in HQ that were uploaded way before anyone knew HQ existed, which means Google has no problems with keeping vast amounts of data.
Well your entire point is that Google can't see where people are because they blur their images, which isn't obvious to me at all. YouTube is full of videos which you can watch in HQ, even though they were uploaded before HQ was an option, which means Google kept the originals.
Why is it that Street View is OK but CCTV in Britain is bad? Both only see what anyone on the street could see. You don't have an expectation of privacy in public.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything you've searched for, everything they've aggregated from public records, every mail you sent with gmail. And the issue isn't tracking, but if Street View saw you entering a brothel they could blackmail you if wanted. I know this sounds paranoid but so is THE GOVERNMENT IS WATCHING ME DOING MY SHOPPING SO I CAN'T ORGANIZE A RESISTANCE.
That doesn't seem likely considering how much Google knows about you.
Who said unidentified?
They still see person X at place Y, which is useful especially if your business is data mining.
They still know person X was at place Y. If you're that paranoid they could blackmail everyone seen near a brothel, etc.
If they or anyone else really wanted to track your movements they could just send a PI or a spook after you, cameras or not.
Yeah, sure, whatever makes you fall asleep at night.
Yeah I heard ad hominems are a great way to win arguments.
Where people go is very useful information, especially if your business is collecting data on people. And that is Google's business.
Or for that matter, selling their information on people to shady future governments?
But then why aren't they afraid of Google blackmailing people they don't like seen near brothels, etc?
Because they can do what you just described? Apparently everyone is a megalomaniac.
Can you provide me with one single plausible motivation for the British government to do so? A single one?
That's my point. If people don't assume some evil purpose behind Street View then why do they see one behind CCTV?
No, the point is that there are a bunch of videos you can watch in HQ that were uploaded way before anyone knew HQ existed, which means Google has no problems with keeping vast amounts of data.
Well your entire point is that Google can't see where people are because they blur their images, which isn't obvious to me at all. YouTube is full of videos which you can watch in HQ, even though they were uploaded before HQ was an option, which means Google kept the originals.
So if someone looks at you on the street you can sue them from invasion of privacy?
Google can see it unblurred.
They still know who was out on the street at a given time.
And it's better if Google does it instead?
Why is it that Street View is OK but CCTV in Britain is bad? Both only see what anyone on the street could see. You don't have an expectation of privacy in public.
If anything, I've noticed my spelling has improved since Pidgin started checking it while I type.
It's more like the catholic church buying a whorehouse TO get rid of all the whores.
They do presumably, if they want their vision to be useful.
Zombies don't have guns, or ladders, but rioters do.