Reading mode: Light Dark

google goes too far (streetview, privacy)

Go to last post
Legally speaking they may get some problems. I am curious, how the lawyers would handle that. Most likely, settlement would be the cure.

I believe, Google hires separate separate contractor, and the human errors of the camera operators will be the main reason for dispersing liabilities.

Entire case is missing the point entirely: your privacy rights has been violated over, and over again, and data about you are collected by any available means. Probably you would never know, who is doing it, and how it is used.
(-)
 
Wah wah wah wah wah. When you are driving all over a damn city you are going to miss a sign or a private drive too. You want something removed?
Use the dang help system and report it.

http://maps.google.com/local/add/flagStreetView?ie=UTF8&ll=45.005957,-93.257961&spn=0.101708,0.130634&z=13&layer=c&cbll=44.992712,-93.262796&panoid=1SLZGk_l9HDJEcr6bGDs6Q&cbp=1,0,,0,5&sig=00e23e96eeff537e3281ac35f1263b5cb30bf6f030c23e0151c882af91088af5aecbd9dda4ab8269fbfb0aebd52c2c488d5908e8eef1d22d96ba76809975423acab7713e3a3a38022e&gl=US&hl=en-US

as an example. I'm so sick of people who do this. You are no different then a cop who approached me last week to question me about me taking pictures in down town St Paul. It was a picture. A picture hurts no one nor does pictures of private drives.
 
SiliconAddict said:
Wah wah wah wah wah. When you are driving all over a damn city you
are going to miss a sign or a private drive too. You want something
removed?
Use the dang help system and report it.
Click to expand...
your argument amounts to:
  • google is too busy to follow laws and respect the sanctity of the 'a man's home is his castle' thing?
  • people should first have their privacy invaded (if on NT style streets) and THEN should have to notice this and spend effort to opt-out?
let me ask straight out - are you nuts?

why put any burden on the homeowner? this is to benefit google, not the owners and google was not invited to the NT residences. tell me again why the homeowners should have to be involved to KEEP corporations out of their lives?
SiliconAddict said:
as an example. I'm so sick of people who do this. You are no
different then a cop who approached me last week to question me about
me taking pictures in down town St Paul. It was a picture. A picture
hurts no one nor does pictures of private drives.
Click to expand...
you conveniently keep failing to see the essential difference. in public, there are one set of rules. in PRIVATE, there are others. why do home owners not deserve their privacy when they chose to live on private non-public land?

the cop stopping you on public land was not at all the same thing as google assuming they are above all 'do not enter' signs and trespassing where they were not asked for or wanted.

if a museum can declare itself 'private' I see no reason why real people can't also claim that right when its on THEIR land.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~
 
Chato said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll acknowledge the fact that, as it stands, the private land owner can set arbitrary rules. Do you suppose they prevent UPS trucks from driving up their private street to make delivery? I doubt it. Had google teamed up with UPS and mounted camera on delivery trucks to record as they made deliveries, what then? In fact, some delivery trucks (not necessary UPS) already have video surveillance cameras, GPS tracking, RF-ID tags, you name it, they're already doing a lot of things that's not much different than what google is doing. Same with utility companies, all of which are private these days, no different than google.

What about private companies that make GPS database from government public land survey info? Can they say they don't want their street listed in GPS? No.
Chato said:
If I don't have the right to trespass, why does a corporation?
Personally I believe I DON'T have the right to trespass.
Click to expand...
You're right. You don't have the right to trespass, but the reality is a lot of private entities do. Google's argument is that they're no different than UPS or utility company. The land owners are setting arbitrary rules, which is inconsistent. Seems they're going to force the issue in court and given google's resources, I'm sure they'll have the best lawyers money can buy to argue their point. I would not want to be the private citizen to go against them in court. That might not sound right, but that's the American style capitalism as we have it.
 
It should have been obvious from 5 years ago, google doesn't care two hoots about your privacy. What do you think they are doing with the bazillion emails sitting on their server, the search queries, documents, google notes, and their never-expiring cookies and never-scrubbed data? This is the most perfect social data-mining setup.

Given that they do all this, what sort of privacy did we expect from street view? The only way to get rid of them is to confront them with a shotgun.
 
I think Google should consider themselves lucky this is being challenged now, before one of their clueless drivers go up some private roads in the Deep South.

So far we're talking about Pennsylvania and California, where people are more civil and will just file complaints or lawsuits at worst. I can think of plenty of places in rural Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, or Louisianna where if someone went a mile up someone's private drive past "no tresspass" signs, that person would probably get no warning before hearing a loud "bang" from a shotgun - then lights out. For real - not a joke or stereotype.

You can't igore "keep out" signs - you have NO idea who is on the other side of that sign, and what they're capable of doing if they feel threatened. Someone driving slowly into your private property with a large dome camera on a rod on their car to some, might be perceived as a threat - a threat great enough to take actions into their own hands. Google lawyers need to realize that this "right" they claim to have to photograph private property is very much endangering lives.

I like the Google street view feature, but I have no desire to peep into private property. They should pull back on their stance.
 
Xoom said:
Xoom said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll acknowledge the fact that, as it stands, the private land owner
can set arbitrary rules. Do you suppose they prevent UPS trucks from
driving up their private street to make delivery? I doubt it. Had
google teamed up with UPS and mounted camera on delivery trucks to
record as they made deliveries, what then? In fact, some delivery
trucks (not necessary UPS) already have video surveillance cameras,
GPS tracking, RF-ID tags, you name it, they're already doing a lot of
things that's not much different than what google is doing. Same
with utility companies, all of which are private these days, no
different than google.

What about private companies that make GPS database from government
public land survey info? Can they say they don't want their street
listed in GPS? No.
Xoom said:
If I don't have the right to trespass, why does a corporation?
Personally I believe I DON'T have the right to trespass.
Click to expand...
You're right. You don't have the right to trespass, but the reality
is a lot of private entities do. Google's argument is that they're
no different than UPS or utility company. The land owners are
setting arbitrary rules, which is inconsistent. Seems they're going
to force the issue in court and given google's resources, I'm sure
they'll have the best lawyers money can buy to argue their point. I
would not want to be the private citizen to go against them in court.
That might not sound right, but that's the American style capitalism
as we have it.
Click to expand...
UPS is NOT trespassing. They are there by invitation. Or are you saying that private land is no longer private if I allow those I wish to vist to come onto it?

And if UPS mounted video cameras to photograph my land or roads, they will not be invited or Allowed back. And it's a stretch to imagine that this is something they would do.

Do I, or do I not have rights? If you are on public land, you can photograph to your hearts content. But that doesn't mean you have a right to trespass on my property and take photographs of my back yard, or come into my house and photograph it's contents. I will react to either of these scenario's with force.

As for Google, if it was me, I would take them to court and probably win. Open and shut case. Others might not be able to afford a lawyer, I would recomend them using one of the legal foundations that often take such cases.

This case is not rocket science.

Dave
 
to mention Texas.

Southerners don't take too kindly to tresspassers, and some will even be on the phone with the police, telling the police exactly what they're going to do to you, as they shoot you down - and get away with it! http://forthardknox.com/2007/12/05/911-call-of-texas-man-shoots-two-robbers/

Sick but true.
Greg Henry said:
I think Google should consider themselves lucky this is being
challenged now, before one of their clueless drivers go up some
private roads in the Deep South.

So far we're talking about Pennsylvania and California, where people
are more civil and will just file complaints or lawsuits at worst. I
can think of plenty of places in rural Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
or Louisianna where if someone went a mile up someone's private drive
past "no tresspass" signs, that person would probably get no warning
before hearing a loud "bang" from a shotgun - then lights out. For
real - not a joke or stereotype.

You can't igore "keep out" signs - you have NO idea who is on the
other side of that sign, and what they're capable of doing if they
feel threatened. Someone driving slowly into your private property
with a large dome camera on a rod on their car to some, might be
perceived as a threat - a threat great enough to take actions into
their own hands. Google lawyers need to realize that this "right"
they claim to have to photograph private property is very much
endangering lives.

I like the Google street view feature, but I have no desire to peep
into private property. They should pull back on their stance.
Click to expand...
--
bryan
--------
http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/

 
I have heard stories about texas, which is a 'shoot first, ask questions later' state.

given that, I would not drive down ANY driveway that wasn't clearly a public one.

grabbing (stealing) personal home info is just NOT worth the risk!

google is just testing the waters and trying to stretch its interpretation of privacy. its in their best interests to reduce personal privacy lower and lower each year. their whole business model is to index ALL info that is grabbable; and what's not already grabbable, they'll find a way to import or even create new info.

quantity of info= 'amount of eyeballs' to them. they only will see that?

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~
 
Actually, the discussion to which you refer regarded private property where the public was given conditional access. By committing wrongful acts, which includes failure to follow commands or requests of their agents after entry, you’ve now committed trespass. As for public lands, much of it is also covered with conditions for entry or use. How are we defining when trespass is okay, vs when it’s not? If we say trespass is bad when simply violating space, but doing no physical harm, why is that worse than trespass committed by violation of the conditions of use of property, when again no physical harm was committed? Why are we considering it bad to physically cross boundaries, when in other areas we accept the right to violate those same boundaries with telephoto lenses, or similar means?
 
Searching_Ut said:
Actually, the discussion to which you refer regarded private property
where the public was given conditional access. By committing wrongful
acts, which includes failure to follow commands or requests of their
agents after entry, you’ve now committed trespass. As for public
lands, much of it is also covered with conditions for entry or use.
How are we defining when trespass is okay, vs when it’s not? If we
say trespass is bad when simply violating space, but doing no
physical harm, why is that worse than trespass committed by violation
of the conditions of use of property, when again no physical harm was
committed? Why are we considering it bad to physically cross
boundaries, when in other areas we accept the right to violate those
same boundaries with telephoto lenses, or similar means?
Click to expand...
If you and I own property or buildings, whatever, we can set the terms of use. Thus, if I invite a guest onto my property, I cannot in turn call the police and have him arrested for trespassing. For that matter a museum can set the terms of use, but again, cannot have me arrested for NOT violating the terms of use. We are bound by our Own rules. So his example of a museum is perfectly legitimate. (I might add, that the museum in question accepts Public Monies, and that changes the equation against them)

On my property I have unlimited rights to set terms of use. If you are a complete stranger, legally you cannot violate my inhernent rights. Those rights are publicly announced - "No Trespassing." What part of no tresspassing do you have difficulty with? Does it say, "No trespassing except for Corporations?"

On the other hand the museum says, "Visitors welcome, no flash photography."

Dave
 
Greg Henry said:
I think Google should consider themselves lucky this is being
challenged now, before one of their clueless drivers go up some
private roads in the Deep South.

So far we're talking about Pennsylvania and California, where people
are more civil and will just file complaints or lawsuits at worst. I
can think of plenty of places in rural Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
or Louisianna where if someone went a mile up someone's private drive
past "no tresspass" signs, that person would probably get no warning
before hearing a loud "bang" from a shotgun - then lights out. For
real - not a joke or stereotype.

You can't igore "keep out" signs - you have NO idea who is on the
other side of that sign, and what they're capable of doing if they
feel threatened. Someone driving slowly into your private property
with a large dome camera on a rod on their car to some, might be
perceived as a threat - a threat great enough to take actions into
their own hands. Google lawyers need to realize that this "right"
they claim to have to photograph private property is very much
endangering lives.
Click to expand...
You can add Arkansas to that list. If not shot at you would at least be confronted with the owner with a shotgun in hand. And I might add that contrary to what someone else stated, I have never seen no trespassing on a road that really wasnt private, and the Arkansas Ozarks are mighty rural. I certainly wouldnt want google driving around on my property taking photos to put up for the world. And incidentally I and another person I know have both been confronted with gun toters when taking photos from a county road. Luckily the people were my neighbors and had no problems with it when they saw who I was. A stranger I am sure would have had an unpleasant experience.

Neither can you equate the UPS truck bringing an expected delivery to someone sneaking around on privately marked property. Where I live mountain etiquette is that when you drive into someones drive you stop (as close as you can get) to the house and honk your horn. If no one comes out, you leave.
--
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/sasc
In the Arkansas Ozarks
 
This is a good thread and brings up a few points of view.

I have used the streetview for work and its a great feature. It did immediately remind me that privacy as we used to think of it is long since gone.

As far as going off on the private property tangent, I use the feature several times a week and usually find they don't have coverage of non urban areas at all, much less going down peoples driveways.

Anyone have a link to the camera and technology used?
 
Ok, I know this is an old dredged up thread - but since people still seem to fuss about Streetview, which at least confines its self to what can be seen from the road. No one ever gets upset about MS Bird Eye view on Bing. Here you can get images of all sides of my house and a good look at the backyard. I am not talking about the fuzzy satellite images, but nice images shot from the air.
 
Dont you know that Google Does No Evil??

Thats what happens when you give young idealistic IT muppetts unlimited influence and money... they think they are above the law.

Look at the Wikileaks stuff!

Its taking the micheal though... clearly illegal here in the UK
--
http://www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.
 
If an amateur photographer were to enter the driveway or the parking lot of Google's campus in Mtn View and start photographing their buildings from all kinds of angles, I am sure the police would be on the scene within a few minutes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Charity linked to Aizu plant site in Google Earth
Replies
1
Views
418
Craig Philips
C

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top