Calls to shut down Google's Streetview!?

[Saracen]

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...

There's already been one case reported, in the UK, of a woman that had to move home to escape violence from an abusive partner having an "identifiable" photo of her published by Google. It's quite conceivable that he could see that picture, or have a friend or colleague comment about seeing his partner "on Google", and that could lead to her being found.

I'm not suggesting that this kind of thing is likely to be common, but unless Google's technology for removing faces and number plates, and any other features that might identify people, is 100% perfect, then it remains a risk. And, from the reports, it certainly isn't 100% perfect.

And given that, the system puts the onus on people, like that abused woman, to firstly know of the existence of Street View, and to keep checking it to ensure she's not in their system. And to hope that she doesn't get spotted between her finding out she's on it and Google pulling the image.

[JPreston]

There's already been one case reported, in the UK, of a woman that had to move home to escape violence from an abusive partner having an "identifiable" photo of her published by Google. It's quite conceivable that he could see that picture, or have a friend or colleague comment about seeing his partner "on Google", and that could lead to her being found.

Without you providing any details much less any links to those reports, I guess I'm to take your word for it. But presumably you aren't talking about Streetview at all, and by 'published by Google' you mean 'on the internet, and indexed by Google'? Which is an entirely different topic.

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.

These examples are getting progressively more silly. I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but I'll guess that there have been specific laws forbidding photography at specific government or military sites for a long time. And just because someone is arrested by police officers armed or otherwise, doesn't make their actions 'wrong', or even illegal. Unless I've missed a memo, the courts still decide that.

In fact, a month or two ago legislation was passed outlawing photographing or filming a police officer on an 'anti-terrorist operation', effectively making photographing a police officer illegal in all circumstances, whatever they are doing at the time. Rodney King? Edit: Jean Charles De Menezes??????

This is insanely authoritarian legislation for a European country to introduce, a world away from banning photography on military bases. This is legislation that the UK shares with Zimbabwe, and few other places. Furthermore it's now common for the police to prominently photograph attendees at peaceful demonstrations and group meetings for the purpose of intimidating members of our 'free' society who are not suspected of any crime. People have photographed coming out of Friends of the Earth meetings. And needless to say this falls under the description of an 'anti-terror operation'...

So everyone in the UK - including battered women, mob witnesses, runaway canoeists and anyone else with particular reasons to remain anonymous - is already being surveilled by CCTV in the street, in offices and shops, basically everywhere, and can expect the Stasi to open a file on them if they so much as attend a residents' meeting opposing the expansion of a nearby airport. Right to Privacy, Association and Expression have all been seriously curtailed recently in concrete, real ways - and not by Google.

Unless you perhaps know something that Google's army of lawyers doesn't, Streetview is going to be perfectly legal even under our Kafkaesque legal system. It can't coherently be argued to encroach on anyone's privacy at all, or at least noone here has coherently argued this. So why have a problem with Streetview, and not all these other 'developments'? Why should anyone be concerned about Streetview at all?

[TooNice]

Without you providing any details much less any links to those reports, I guess I'm to take your word for it. But presumably you aren't talking about Streetview at all, and by 'published by Google' you mean 'on the internet, and indexed by Google'? Which is an entirely different topic.

I've read about that too. Not sure exactly where anymore, but chances are, it's linked to this page:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-564039
(I've not looked any further into the legitimacy of the report - but that's probably where it came from anyway)

[JPreston]

I've read about that too. Not sure exactly where anymore, but chances are, it's linked to this page:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/...]=x-347-564039
(I've not looked any further into the legitimacy of the report - but that's probably where it came from anyway)

Thanks (fixed your link). True, the woman complained to privacyinternational. There's no explanation as to how she was identifiable though - it seems to be an astronomical coincidence where an infrequent un-blurred face belonged to someone who has effectively put herself in hiding and had been leaning against her front gate just as the Google car passed by. I hope she also remembered to complain to Google so they have removed the photo.

Some of those 'extreme distress' claims sound a bit far-fetched though:

A man complained to us that when he looked up his own home on Street View every numberplate had been blurred other than that of his own car, which was parked directly outside his home. The complainant is now extremely concerned about security implications.

Really? Why? His car is presumably registered to his address....it can quite often be seen parked outside it with his number-plate visible (and everyone else's). Anyone wanting to clone his plate (which is the only reason I can come up with worrying about this) would have surely gone to a multi-storey car park, or searched for careless sellers on ebay, to find a car the same colour and model as the one they want to disguise. Surely quicker than finding the odd un-blurred plate on Streetview and hoping to find a match? It wasn't long ago that we had army personnel driving round Northern Ireland in identifiably mainland plates, that's a security risk, but this?

Secret skateboarders and lecherous decorators aside (all of those should have been more wary of neighbours and aquaintances observing them) my favourite is:

Two men working for a large organization were identified by work colleagues in a situation which gave the appearance that they were kissing each other. This was not the case, but the image - subsequently widely circulated throughout the organization - has caused great humiliation to them and their (female) partners.

OK here, due to a combination of fate coincidence and precise perspective angles Streetview seems to have caught a moment of intimacy, frozen in time. But isn't the solution here for everyone concerned to GROW UP A BIT?

[Andeh13]

I read through the different situations which streetview has caused ''distress'', but i still fail to see how this situations ended up causing ''distress''. A simple explanation disproves them all, and in the majority of cases they have been blown out of perportion it seems.

A woman was captured leaning out of her loungeroom window in the company of a man. The woman's husband discovered the image and confronted his wife, demanding an explanation of her apparent "affair". It transpired that the man was a contractor, and the woman was discussing a quote for exterior painting work. The argument was swiftly resolved, but the couple is still extremely distressed about the situation.

A husband sees his wife leaning out of a window with his wife? .....what do the neighbours think/would say, they will have had a good view of it all?

A fifteen year-old boy was caught on Street View carrying a skateboard, which his parents had expressly forbade him from using. The boy subsequently had a row with the parents and is now staying with friends.

LOL, you cant be serious.....

A man (whose face was partially blurred) was recognized by his partner having a cigarette outside his place of work. This has caused distress and dysfunction in the relationship as the man in question had not disclosed to his partner that he enjoyed the occasional cigarette.

He enjoys the occasional cigarette, so what? Reason to be disapointed but hardly life/relationship changing stuff. They sit, they talk, he agrees to give it up, he lives longer. Streetview just added 5 years to his life.

Two men working for a large organization were identified by work colleagues in a situation which gave the appearance that they were kissing each other. This was not the case, but the image - subsequently widely circulated throughout the organization - has caused great humiliation to them and their (female) partners.

Men chatting away, being accused of gay? - Surely that alone breaks a few office rules about joking about gays/accusing someone of being gay. Didnt BT fire a dozen people over an irish joke a while back?

A married man was captured speaking at close proximity with a female colleague. Because of nearby noisy road works he was forced to speak into her ear, but the image created the appearance of intimacy. This image created a tense argument between the married couple.

Married man chatting away with a female collegue? Again there was traffic, this happens and a simple explanation would surely suffice. This is one of the more valid points, admittedly. But i still dont see it as a reason to bring streetview to its knees.

edit;

Even re-reading it all i can think of is 'scraping the barrel', one or two have a semi-valid point, but the fact they were in full view of the road, in public, in daylight AND in areas where they could be recognised by other people. We are hardly talking about sexual acts, nudity, personal acts or acts people would be deeply embarrassed for if they came up on the internet.

[shaithis]

They are scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to finding excuses.

It's utter madness what people are complaining about, personally I think it's a good system.......make it real time (like that's going to happen any time soon! lol) and there is a problem.....until then complainers are blowing things totally out of proportion IMO.

[format]

Mental

[JPreston]

Mental

Ha ha ha they just interviewed him on Radio 4 just now, what a pillock. "This is an affluent area. We've already had three burglaries locally in the past six weeks. If our houses are plastered all over Google it's an invitation for more criminals to strike. Now get orf moi laaaaaand before I release the hounds and rouse the torch-bearing villagers."

[Whiternoise]

Ironically this is the "affluent" neighbourhood:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...ynes&encType=1

I'm not particularly well off, nor is my family, but when i heard "affluent" area i was expecting some cosy village in the countryside where the annual WI meetings are heard. Not a bunch of new builds next to an industrial estate

Oh and of course telling the papers guarantees their privacy

[Steve]

Let's all go round and take photos.

[Disturbedguy]

What a load of bullsh*t to be honest.

If your house is going to get robbed, it's going to get robbed regardless of whether or not it appears on Google Street View or not, instead of moaning about and blocking the path of someone driving around in a car taking pictures, why not invest in better security for there homes?

I mean it's not really *that* hard a choice is it?

Protect home? or Stop a man doing his job?

Hmmmmm that's a tough one that.

[Marcos]

I like the idea of new tech, but if people abuse it and it helps them do crime, i can live without it

[Lee H]

I like the idea of new tech, but if people abuse it and it helps them do crime, i can live without it

In that similar vein of thinking...

Mobiles should be banned as they allow people to contact their dealers 24/7 when they are mobile doing their deliveries.

Internet access should be banned due to the amount of videos and music that are stolen on a daily basis.

Just because something can be used for "illegal" purposes doesn't mean it should be banned outright with a knee-jerk reaction. If that's the case we should all ban king-size rizla especially the silver ones as they are used for criminal activities

[TheAnimus]

[MadduckUK]

If that's the case we should all ban king-size rizla especially the silver ones as they are used for criminal activities

that's a bad example!

[PeterStoba]

The idiot on bbc news in the village, he has no argument whatsoever, what sort of excuse is it...

i used it to check out paris and the local area, helpful, found a local shop for snacks in the hotel