Calls to shut down Google's Streetview!?

[jackvdbuk]

i dunno how true this is, but on the average UK resident gets caught on CCTV 300 times a day.
and you think that being in 1 more photo in your whole life is gonna make any difference?

brilliant idea imo

one big differnce however is that CCTV is not publicly viewable

i also think its brill, my area is so clear its like i actually took the pics

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

On the face of it is fun but there are also potential privacy issues too it seems. As with any tech there are upsides and downsides!!

[TooNice]

I can see one use to it. I made a thread here (http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...ransfer-2.html) about picking up an item of value from someone I've never met. I obviously survived the encounter judging by the fact that I am posting here, but it was admittedly quite a nerve wrecking experience. I took many reasonable precautions to ensure that it was legit, and had Streetview been available in that area then, it would've been yet another tool I would have used in my decision making. Granted Googlemap was able to tell me that the location is not some old council house, but a better picture wouldn't hurt

So, judging by the articles on the Wiki, they actually employ a bunch of people driving Vauxhall Astras and taking pictures of locations? o.O

[AledJ]

Some people seem to have a bee in their bonnet about being on streetview. Now I can't understand this invasion of privacy rubbish. How many of us have been to say football or rugby matches or musics gig's etc. I bet you there are a number of photos with you in them in the background. Are people now going to demand those pictures that may have them int he background be deleted?

And the whole argument about burglars being able to see houses etc..................How does this help them in any way???? All they can see is a street view!!!

TBH some people are just kicking up a fuss about nothing. We should be more concerned about the increase in CCTV cameras that don't seem to be cutting crime.

[IBM]

If I was off for a short break to a city which has been mapped, I'd spend a couple of hours doing walkabouts, just to familiarise myself with the city layout, have a look at what's worth seeing etc. Imagine how less busy the Tube in London would be during the summer if all those tourists realised that you can pretty much walk between most touristy areas in about ten minutes...

[Brucelles]

I used it in Paris to find out if the Metal bar I had been recommended was in a dodgy area. It wasn't so I went and tried it. Great Bar.

I also use it to look at hotel locations before I book. I am kind of disappointed that it doesn't have my house on it.

[TheAnimus]

So as I said YOU are entitled to your own opinion, as am I and my opinion as a house owner that has earned and paid for his property is unless you have good legal reason to know about my property and my life you should go forth ..... etc.

Riight, because no one walking down the street would see more would they?

This is mostly useful for people finding a specific place, from other data, ie someone tells them a shop is halfway up x road, they can find it on the map quickly.

Someone looking for houses to break into might do better than to think "OMG that window is open" only to turn up and find out it was closed some 6 months ago?

As for 'casing joints' personally i'd find it easier to walk down the street, seeing the properties in a higher resolution and when i see one worth breaking into doing it then n there, not finding out that they've subsiquently put up a fence/dog.

[Saracen]

.....

Legally there is no ground whatsoever for removal. They have given you the option of removing your details if they exist, and as mentioned you can have your house removed if you want. They are taking pictures in public places, on public soil and that's well within the rules of photography in this country.

You're wrong there, I'm afraid. There are indeed grounds for forcing removal legally, and/or for suing them for using some images. Whether anybody does it or not remains to be seen, but it IS the case that it could happen. And it isn't just the laws of this country that apply.

Firstly, those of you using some private individual taking a photo of you in public are using an inappropriate analogy. If I, as an individual, take a photo of you in public, that's one situation. But if I publish it, it's entirely another. There are laws and regulations controlling what can and can't be done when publishing pictures. There's more laws if you're selling images, even of private individuals taken in public places, and there's laws about commercial usage too.

Oh, and bear in mind, theses images will be published (by putting them on Google's services) and have an element of commercial use worldwide, so you not only have to worry about UK laws, but laws in every other jurisdiction, including the US.

Oh, and some objects and/or buildings are protected by copyright, too. If you publish pictures of those without permission, you could well get sued.

And even in relation to privacy, in some jurisdictions, publishing photos of people that have an expectation of privacy even in public places will ge grounds for a lawsuit.

As for what damage can result from these pictures, well, how long will it be before someone finds a photo of their husband/wife where they shouldn't be and ends up with a divorce, or their car parked where it shouldn't be, or of an employee that's supposed to be off sick gets fired because of photo evidence that they're where they shouldn't be, and so on. Unless every single number plate and identifiable face it removed, it's only a question of time. I'm not saying that that would be illegal, but it's certainly damaging.

[Saracen]

Oh, and some posts in this thread are very close to breaking our rules about insulting other members. Don't insult people just because you don't agree with their view. Disagree by all means, but do it without insults, mild or not.

[Whiternoise]

You're wrong there, I'm afraid. There are indeed grounds for forcing removal legally, and/or for suing them for using some images. Whether anybody does it or not remains to be seen, but it IS the case that it could happen. And it isn't just the laws of this country that apply.

Firstly, those of you using some private individual taking a photo of you in public are using an inappropriate analogy. If I, as an individual, take a photo of you in public, that's one situation. But if I publish it, it's entirely another. There are laws and regulations controlling what can and can't be done when publishing pictures. There's more laws if you're selling images, even of private individuals taken in public places, and there's laws about commercial usage too.

Oh, and bear in mind, theses images will be published (by putting them on Google's services) and have an element of commercial use worldwide, so you not only have to worry about UK laws, but laws in every other jurisdiction, including the US.

Oh, and some objects and/or buildings are protected by copyright, too. If you publish pictures of those without permission, you could well get sued.

And even in relation to privacy, in some jurisdictions, publishing photos of people that have an expectation of privacy even in public places will ge grounds for a lawsuit.

As for what damage can result from these pictures, well, how long will it be before someone finds a photo of their husband/wife where they shouldn't be and ends up with a divorce, or their car parked where it shouldn't be, or of an employee that's supposed to be off sick gets fired because of photo evidence that they're where they shouldn't be, and so on. Unless every single number plate and identifiable face it removed, it's only a question of time. I'm not saying that that would be illegal, but it's certainly damaging.

Surely their argument would be that they're not deliberately taking pictures of any specific person or building? If they were taking ten shots of my house, or 20 shots of me as i walked around then maybe i'd complain.. If you take a picture at a football match and publish it in a paper, i'm fairly sure the photographers don't have to go to everyone sitting in the stands to ask for permission to be photographed in the background (unless you sign some hidden waiver when you buy the ticket..)?

I didn't mean to say that people aren't legally allowed to ask for their personal effects to be removed from the service, but i think google were within their rights to make streetview - and i reckon they'd win in court if they were taken. They're offering people the right to remove anything they want that invades their privacy, which to my mind is enough.

http://curly15.wordpress.com/2008/04...n-photography/

[Barakka]

If I was off for a short break to a city which has been mapped, I'd spend a couple of hours doing walkabouts, just to familiarise myself with the city layout, have a look at what's worth seeing etc. Imagine how less busy the Tube in London would be during the summer if all those tourists realised that you can pretty much walk between most touristy areas in about ten minutes...

Yep, used it a couple of years ago to have a wander around San Francisco before we visited. Meant I knew my way from our hotel to the centre, and where some of the landmarks, and more obscure places we wanted to visit were. Was definately much easier having a sense of where we were going by recognising houses and junctions etc. I can see the argument for maybe restricting it to city centres, but then I used it to find a little independent boutique my wife wanted to visit in a mainly residential area. Would have been a pain to find if I hadn't seen the StreetView maps as we would proabably have turned back half way thinking we'd gone the wrong way.

[JPreston]

As for what damage can result from these pictures, well, how long will it be before someone finds a photo of their husband/wife where they shouldn't be and ends up with a divorce, or their car parked where it shouldn't be, or of an employee that's supposed to be off sick gets fired because of photo evidence that they're where they shouldn't be, and so on. Unless every single number plate and identifiable face it removed, it's only a question of time. I'm not saying that that would be illegal, but it's certainly damaging.

Eh?

With the first example I presume you mean the blurred-out photos of public streets without any sort of time-stamp might somehow capture a snapshot proving infidelity, in which case they've presumably either broken some kind of public indecency offence or should invest in some curtains, the wronged spouse would have no way to search for the photos anyway, and it's much more likely that a mutual friend would bust them in the act if they carry on their affair so publicly.

The second example: to my knowledge parking tickets aren't issued by CCTV, a friendly CEO still has to physically slap the notice on the car. What use would google be for this? Wouldn't I just say that the pciture was taken outside the restricted hours? Wouldn't I deserve to be caught anyway? Where might I park that I would be so troubled by someone seeing my car? If I was that worried I'd have to stand next to my car to constantly guard against photographers, which means it probably would have been easier walking and being filmed by CCTV instead. Or using public transport, and again smiling for CCTV.

The third example involves fraud or at least gross misconduct, but how would the employer find their blurry employee, and how would they prove the photo wasn't taken on a Saturday weeks ago?

None of those examples make any sense. Likewise burglars would do better to walk down the street themselves equipped and ready to take advantage of opportunities as they arise rather than scouring google earth for a picture of a house with a downstairs window that was open one day last summer.

All of these examples hold - or rather do not hold - for TV news location reports and photos in newspapers. I was quite clearly visible in a local news report, and no-one asked me to consent to my image being broadcast, not that I had a problem. This isn't a stupid 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' argument - let's not forget that as a subject of the most surveilled society the Earth has ever seen, I can be identified and tracked in real-time throughout pretty much my entire day by unaccountable CCTV operatives - a pretty menial job, and anyone with dastardly intentions and so inclined could get such a job easily.

There's a huge difference between being surveilled in real-time and being photographed once by chance while out in public, even before that photograph gets anonymised . Why would I care at all that there is a blurry, unindentifiable, dateless, static picture of my car parked on a street somewhere?

[Whiternoise]

I think the parking example was in reference to an affair - ie if you saw your wife's car outside that seedy Italian fellow's house that you have suspicions about, but your counter argument still holds, there's no evidence for time unless you're seriously into heliology..

[Andeh13]

At the end of the day, the fact that the picture are of 6+ months ago, on a random day at a random time make it nigh on imposible to find anything suspcious, be it an affair or someone taking a sicky when they shouldnt be.

Surely you would need to prove when the pictures were taken before you could start causing a fuss over them? I guessed it was a sunday when the car went round Coventry based on shop's opening hours that i know of and how quiet the university was, even then i only knew it was sometime between July 28th due to posters that i could see hung up advertising activities in one of the big parks.


Still loving ''driving'' round the city hoping to spot someone/something i recognise. Life in the fast lane for me!

[JPreston]

I think the parking example was in reference to an affair - ie if you saw your wife's car outside that seedy Italian fellow's house that you have suspicions about, but your counter argument still holds, there's no evidence for time unless you're seriously into heliology..

Ah I see. Well, if I were so suspicious as to scour Google Earth streetview looking for a car that is a similar colour and model to my wife's car (the plate has been blurred) parked somewhere that is within walking distance (and anywhere is walking distance if you have enough time) of somewhere the driver (who may or may not actually be my wife) may have gone to meet a man (who she may or not be having an affair with, if it even is her car) at some unknown time on some unknown day, then I think I'd save a lot of time by just following her one day instead.

And if she did meet him, I'd kill them both. And hope the Streetview car wasn't driving past at that instant...

[Saracen]

Surely their argument would be that they're not deliberately taking pictures of any specific person or building? If they were taking ten shots of my house, or 20 shots of me as i walked around then maybe i'd complain.. If you take a picture at a football match and publish it in a paper, i'm fairly sure the photographers don't have to go to everyone sitting in the stands to ask for permission to be photographed in the background (unless you sign some hidden waiver when you buy the ticket..)?

I didn't mean to say that people aren't legally allowed to ask for their personal effects to be removed from the service, but i think google were within their rights to make streetview - and i reckon they'd win in court if they were taken. They're offering people the right to remove anything they want that invades their privacy, which to my mind is enough.

http://curly15.wordpress.com/2008/04...n-photography/

News reporting is one example where photographs are allowed but where the same photo would not be if used for commercial purposes, such as advertising. The football match example, therefore, is not an appropriate analogy, because the usage is different and so is the legal situation.

But I remind you of what you said, which is what I picked you up on, which was

Legally there is no ground whatsoever for removal. They have given you the option of removing your details if they exist, and as mentioned you can have your house removed if you want. They are taking pictures in public places, on public soil and that's well within the rules of photography in this country.

So there are examples, for instance, of where a photo can be used for news reporting, but not for commercial purposes. Well, is Street View "news reporting"? That'd be a push. On the other hand, it is a service, operated by a distinctly commercial organisation, and no doubt the case could be made that advertising revenue is driven by such services even if, like Google's search engine, it's free to the end user.

I'll say it again, taking a photo from public places is not necessarily legal. It's not necessarily illegal either, but it's certainly not necessarily legal. Try sitting up a tree, taking photos with a long lens of secret government installations, or even the homes of senior ministers, and see how the "it's legal" argument serves you ..... when you're explaining yourself to armed officers as you're arrested.

Similarly, you could take a photo of, say, David Beckham, in a public place, and if you stick it in your photo album, you'd be fine. You might well be fine putting it on a personal website too. You;d certainly get away with most public photos, where there's no expectation of privacy, on a "news" site. But use it for commercial purposes, such as to imply he endorses a commercial product, like hair gel, and see how long it takes his lawyers to contact you.

Or try sitting up a tree (on public property) outside someone's house taking pictures through their bedroom window. That's another one that's going to get you in trouble.

While taking pictures in a public place is generally legal and fine, it is certainly not the case that is always the case. Be careful of sweeping generalisations, especially where the legal situation is concerned, because it's nearly always far more complicated than you'd think.