Google snapper sent packing

[SpiderX22]

Read this in the paper this morning:

"A gaggle of residents in the affluent hamlet formed a human chain to turn away a car shooting images for Google Street View, the popular service that allows Internet users to see high-quality photos of houses and streets around the world...."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/04/04/google_snapper_sent_packing/

Quotes:
"I was upstairs when I spotted the camera car driving down the lane," villager Paul Jacobs told the Times of London newspaper. "My immediate reaction was anger: How dare anyone take a photograph of my home without my consent?"

"Google says the technology is legal, useful and non-intrusive. To preserve privacy, individuals' faces and car license plates are obscured by pixelation."

Such a lie. The majority of images are unblurred, only a few, seemingly random images are actually blurred. And most are blurred pretty shakily...such as only some faces, or some notfaces.

[GEH4EVR]

I saw that the other day on the news here, to be honest the locals don't have any right to send the car away, the photos are being taken from a public road. And really, there would be nothing stopping a person on foot walking down the road or sidewalk, and taking photographs of whatever they want, as people commonly do.

[TerraGazer]

I agree with them and turning the car away. There may be no laws protecting individuals' privacy in the UK, but it would be considered invasion of one's privacy in the US and ILLEGAL. Even people on sidewalks are not legally allowed to snap photos of people or their property without express consent. And just as it should be.

Who's to say it isn't making it easier for criminals/thieves to case a joint online? Hmmm? Or getting photos of your kids? Or identifying your vehicle? It may seem cool to see the pics of streets away from home, but it is an invasion of privacy, which we all have a right to have. :yep: If you want to see foreign streets.....travel! :D

[T.Dooley]

This is a very interesting discussion of current level of 'outlook'. What I mean is that what you right now can see and zoom into is nothing compared to what is to come.

I guess most people was stunned by the detailed level and easy navigating when Google Earth (2004) Keyhole (2001) was introduced only a few years ago. Since then it has only gone one way, to better and better and better...

I can not imagine that this will stop, just like GPS 10 years ago had an accuracy of 50 meters (164 feet and now it's 5 (16 feet)! Do you think it's still 5 meters in 10 years? No way, more likely 0,5 meters (1.6 feet) or even better... Just like that, I'm sure that in a not distant future we will most likely see resolutions in GE beyond (current) imagination. Streetview is just a spot preview of what we can expect.

So this discussion is very important. What should we allow?

Most of us would not have any objections against viewing high detailed images of the jungle parts of the Amazon river or a remote area of Grand Canyon.

But would you like to be able to zoom in on Mount Everest and maybe spot one of the several bodies left there during years of climbing. As of 2002 there are actually reported to be at least 41 bodies left on just the north side of Everest.

Just as problematic, but hopefully not as macabre, is when satellites and, currently streetview photo cars, is capturing detailed high resolution images in populated areas.

In 10 years I feel pity with the penthouse terrace pool owners who up till now has been relatively private. Just check out how much interest nowadays there is in rather unsharp images, leaving most to fantasy, 2 people in a park, or a sunbather in a backyard. In 10 years we can read the magazine page they are reading and count the ice cubes in their drinks.

I believe in that this is not a discussion of black and white, forbidding or allowing everything. But establishing the level. And then making companies and governments practice it, by law, just like many countries and companies (not all, embarrassing enough) nowadays must publish if data leaks occur.