google goes too far (streetview, privacy)

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080821/NEWS/10644/0/news07

it seems that googles' interests always come first. they have been ignoring private roads and trespassing 'because they can and because they want to'.

should google be punished for going too far? is this where corporate greed takes us?

google isn't doing this for the 'benefit of mankind'; google is an ADVERTISING company and 100% of what they do is to sell ads to people. in effect, they are taking privacy away from people for their own monetary gains.

google has lost their mojo. they have ceased to be the company that 'does no evil'.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

I just lit my torch! You get the pitchfork!

no txt

I agree, this is trampling the rights of the public. They should be restricted to only public roads. This kind of "photography" gives all photographers a black eye.

"Google also claimed the Pittsburgh couple, Aaron and Christine Boring, did not have an expectation to privacy because they did not go far enough to keep people off their private dirt road."

I guess the couple should have just fired a couple warning shots and I don't mean camera shooting.

What Google is doing is just ridiculous. Who the hell does it think it is? I can say for sure that its Bot doesn't follow the no crawling directives on servers and it will keep trying to index your IP even if you have the simple text file to tell its bot to f-off. Just another company who thinks it is above all others and can do whatever the hell it wants. And now with photographs of private properties?! What's next? Google camera man to photograph/document the interior designs of private properties?

Last year, Google was sued by an elderly lady for breach of privacy because her doggie was seen behind her window...
--
WillemB

Sounds like it should be renamed Oogle.

--Keep your lens clean and your mind open.

http://www.pbase.com/peterb/

linuxworks said:

google isn't doing this for the 'benefit of mankind'; google is an
ADVERTISING company and 100% of what they do is to sell ads to
people. in effect, they are taking privacy away from people for
their own monetary gains.

Click to expand...

So does entire broadcasting and publishing industry. Only pornographic enterprises give away sexual gratification for free.

Sense of privacy changes rapidly with the wave of growing data banks for hire. More, and more people have access to your private information much more sensitive, than your driveway.

Respect CIA and Google: their web sites share everything what they know about you and your world.
(-)

linuxworks said:

......
it seems that googles' interests always come first. they have been
ignoring private roads and trespassing 'because they can and because
they want to'.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I could have sworn that in many of your past posts, you've extolled the virtues of those didn’t blindly follow rules like sheep. I’m not sure why you’d think it’s okay for individual “photographers” to violate peoples space and rules to take photos, then take exactly the opposite stand if it’s a company. I thought our motto was supposed to be that we can take photos anytime, and anywhere we want to....

I still prefer Photosynth

http://photosynth.net/view.aspx?cid=4955cfc9-9f71-493d-b014-906773e950f7

(But what were you ranting about? I don't get that. If you can see something arn't you free to photograph or video it? Are you after a society without photographs of video? Is that USA today?)

Searching_Ut said:

linuxworks said:

......
it seems that googles' interests always come first. they have been
ignoring private roads and trespassing 'because they can and because
they want to'.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I could have sworn that in many of your past posts, you've
extolled the virtues of those didn’t blindly follow rules like sheep.
I’m not sure why you’d think it’s okay for individual “photographers”
to violate peoples space and rules to take photos, then take exactly
the opposite stand if it’s a company. I thought our motto was
supposed to be that we can take photos anytime, and anywhere we want
to....

Click to expand...

Can you quote a post of his stating that people should be allowed to trespass on Private Property?

You can't.

All you can do is quote him saying that we should not be stopped for shooting on Public Property.
I do believe that's the entire point here.

Dave

I think the plaintiffs are over reacting. They can simply ask google to remove it and they will. Really, these are the kinds of people that would come after photographers for taking a picture of their house from a public street. Anyone who likes photography would do well to be on google's side.

the key thing you missed was

"NO TRESPASSING"

what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

yes, I think people should be able to take pics where its public. but if a museum can claim 'private property' then why can't an INDIVIDUAL state such?

I'm much for peoples' rights than corporate rights. in fact, I don't believe much in corp rights - corps are NOT human beings and are always, always 2nd to humans.

google is evil here since they ignore peoples' signs at their driveways.

there is no flip-flop in my position. people should have AT LEAST as much privacy as any corp.

Searching_Ut said:

linuxworks said:

......
it seems that googles' interests always come first. they have been
ignoring private roads and trespassing 'because they can and because
they want to'.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I could have sworn that in many of your past posts, you've
extolled the virtues of those didn’t blindly follow rules like sheep.
I’m not sure why you’d think it’s okay for individual “photographers”
to violate peoples space and rules to take photos, then take exactly
the opposite stand if it’s a company. I thought our motto was
supposed to be that we can take photos anytime, and anywhere we want
to....

Click to expand...

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

Xoom said:

I think the plaintiffs are over reacting. They can simply ask google
to remove it and they will.

Click to expand...

AFTER a crime has been committed?

they saw the no trespassing sign. they ignored it. why should they get a free pass and require WORK and effort on the people they trespassed on. this should be opt-IN and not opt-OUT!

Xoom said:

Really, these are the kinds of people
that would come after photographers for taking a picture of their
house from a public street. Anyone who likes photography would do
well to be on google's side.

Click to expand...

they are making money indirectly from this and so people should get a 'cut of the action' at the very least. no different than when a car dealer plasters his name on your car. I refuse that and tell the dealer 'you want advertising from me? PAY ME.'

google won't do that and so they are trying to steal without compensation. pretty low-down, but this is google MO, of late ;(

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

bthe said:

it is? I can say for sure that its Bot doesn't follow the no crawling
directives on servers and it will keep trying to index your IP even
if you have the simple text file to tell its bot to f-off. Just

Click to expand...

confirmed here, too. I used to run a webserver on my dsl line and used to track the access.log very actively. I could see the MSN bots and the google bots over and over again even though I disallowed ALL robots.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

linuxworks said:

AFTER a crime has been committed?

they saw the no trespassing sign. they ignored it. why should they
get a free pass and require WORK and effort on the people they
trespassed on. this should be opt-IN and not opt-OUT!

Click to expand...

You're jumping to conclusions. How do you know a crime has been commited? Obviously you don't live in a rural area. I don't know about where you live, but around here there are many side roads posted with illegal "no trespassing" signs at the cattle grate. As much as it looks like a little farm road, It's a public road that should be open for access & the owner has no right to claim private property, yet people do it and it takes a lot of threats by the authorities to get them to comply. The signs go down, but usually return after a few month. The locals know better and ignore it. If google hired locals as the article claims, it's possible that is the MO of the camera car driver.

It's not so simple as you think. You don't know all the facts. Any photographer who value photographer rights would be lame to jump to such conclusions as you have.

Xoom said:

Xoom said:

AFTER a crime has been committed?

they saw the no trespassing sign. they ignored it. why should they
get a free pass and require WORK and effort on the people they
trespassed on. this should be opt-IN and not opt-OUT!

Click to expand...

You're jumping to conclusions. How do you know a crime has been
commited?

Click to expand...

the article says that the no-trespassing sign was IN the street view. they collected evidence against themselves.

Xoom said:

Obviously you don't live in a rural area.

Click to expand...

what does that have to do with the price of bread and beer?

Xoom said:

I don't know
about where you live, but around here there are many side roads
posted with illegal "no trespassing" signs at the cattle grate. As
much as it looks like a little farm road, It's a public road that

Click to expand...

oh, so by that logic, ALL 'private' signs are to be assumed to be fake?

Xoom said:

It's not so simple as you think. You don't know all the facts.

Click to expand...

your take on the facts sounds worse than those reported in the actual article.

Xoom said:

Any
photographer who value photographer rights would be lame to jump to
such conclusions as you have.

Click to expand...

there should be consistency. I find it annoying that museums claim 'private property' and even charge admission yet won't let us take pics. by the same token, if a home owner wants to exclude google - they should be able to. tit for tat.

corporations try to have it both ways. as usual.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

linuxworks said:

the article says that the no-trespassing sign was IN the street view.
they collected evidence against themselves.

Click to expand...

Again, how do you know that is not an illegal sign?

linuxworks said:

linuxworks said:

Obviously you don't live in a rural area.

Click to expand...

what does that have to do with the price of bread and beer?

Click to expand...

It mean you lack any understanding of the complexity of the issue & jumping to false conclusions.

linuxworks said:

linuxworks said:

I don't know
about where you live, but around here there are many side roads
posted with illegal "no trespassing" signs at the cattle grate. As
much as it looks like a little farm road, It's a public road that

Click to expand...

oh, so by that logic, ALL 'private' signs are to be assumed to be fake?

Click to expand...

If google hired locals as the article claim, yes, that could be the assumption made. Again, you simply don't understand since you're obviously a city boy with no sense of these things.

linuxworks said:

there should be consistency. I find it annoying that museums claim
'private property' and even charge admission yet won't let us take
pics.

Click to expand...

Isn't there a bit of a difference in that the museum may not let people take photos inside the museum but do they restrict photographers from taking pictures of the exterior of the building? If Google wanted to come inside a home and take pictures I think the owner could say no and be well within their rights.

As for private roads and roads with no trespassing signs those signs are sometimes posted because regular use of a road can turn it into a public access road. I have no idea if that was the case in this instance but I do know that property owners in certain states, California being one, must take certain actions, one being to close the road to all traffic for one day each year, to prevent the road become public access.

linuxworks said:

by the same token, if a home owner wants to exclude google -
they should be able to. tit for tat.

Click to expand...

I live on a public street so Google could come by and take pictures of my house if the wanted to, I do not think I could stop it. I know that the companies that provide mapping services for GPS systems drive around mapping out streets all the time. Have no idea if they try to get access on private roads though, I do not know anyone that has their own road.

linuxworks said:

corporations try to have it both ways. as usual.

Click to expand...

So do we as individual human beings. Corporations usually have better lawyers though and get by with a lot more.
--
Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

Xoom said:

Xoom said:

the article says that the no-trespassing sign was IN the street view.
they collected evidence against themselves.

Click to expand...

Again, how do you know that is not an illegal sign?

Click to expand...

Considering that Google makes no secret of it's RIGHT to photograph private roads, what are you talking about?

From the link:
*********

Sonoma County maintains 1,381 miles of public roads, excluding city streets. Beyond that, hundreds of private roads extend to secluded homes tucked into the county's most remote regions.

Some of these private roads look remarkably similar to public roads, while others are gated roads that serve as long, dirt driveways.

Google has driven up both types of private roads in Sonoma County, going through open gates and past private property signs.

The Press Democrat analyzed the extent of Google’s incursion onto private property using digital maps provided by the county of Sonoma. The analysis found Google had photographed along more than 100 private roads.
*************

The argument that this or that road is "really" private is an academic one. They couldn't care less. If you want to continue to argue, at least simply acknowledge what Google is doing and proceed from there. Google, as the article shows, is doing what I would risk arrest for.

If I don't have the right to trespass, why does a corporation? Personally I believe I DON'T have the right to trespass.

Dave