If you thought the grainy satellite images of naked sunbathers from Google Earth were a borderline invasion of privacy, Google Street View takes things to a whole new level. This remarkable feature allows users to take virtual 360-degree panaromic walk-through tours of a city - starting with San Francisco, of course. However, it has already captured people in a number of compromising situations, from scantily-clad sunbathers and unfortunate individuals going into and out of sex stores to apparent home break-ins.
On one level, this tool is obviously nifty. You could easy imagine wandering the virtual streets of San Francisco for hours. Still, your attitude might change pretty quickly if the scary-looking Google Street View Van caught you with your pants down (yes, literally - but the image has been taken down) or embarrassed others we knew. Already someone is asking Google to take down an image of her house cat - if Google complies, what could it mean but the end of this tool?
Meanwhile, you can vote on a continually-updated collection of the hottest, strangest and silliest Google Street View shots. Wired has set up a Digg/Reddit-like system for users to submit and rate the best images. If that doesn’t bring out any number of complaints from unintentional ‘Street View community members’ it’s hard to say what will! Meanwhile, here is their goofy tutorial for those of you who haven’t started exploring Google Street View yet.
21 Comments
June 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
i think the thing is cool. its interesting especially if you were moving to the area… as for the man peeing on the side of the road - google has taken it down…
June 8th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Yup, that one is gone but there are a lot of strange ones still up - as well as mundane ones that people are still asking to have removed. If that trend continues I suspect they’ll have to disable the whole program or come up with a way to easily/quickly remove content by location.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I am somewhere in the middle on the webcam business in cities. It can cause a lot of heartache if the wrong picture becomes public on the net but then again, it is a great marketing tool for tourism. Either way, it can be a double-edge knife in both areas.
Great article though. Interesting read.
Paisley
June 8th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Agreed - I can really see the benefit, too, of being able to look up an area around a street address you’re going to visit - so you’ll know what you’re looking for. But at the end of the day, there will be a lot of questionable info too. It’s a tough call for sure.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I think they should blur only the offending image and not remove entire city blocks.
You can find a Great selection of StreetView links at:
http://www.mapmole.com
June 9th, 2007 at 3:06 am
LOL yah that’s a good idea - turn it into a Digg system. Meanwhile: yeah, that seems like a reasonable solution … it’ just going to be hard the bigger this gets. I wonder if that’ll mean more work than they’re willing to put into it. It wil be interesting to see either way!
June 10th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I fear that with continued editing the service will become useless.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Kevin Bankston, staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says: “We’re moving into a future where not only must you realize the risk that you might be photographed in public, but where it’s becoming a near certainty that you will be captured any time you go out.”
This kind of violation of privacy sounds like a threat of kidnapping, doesn’t it? Taking an image, then holding it captive, forcing an individual to accept the circumstances because there is no other option nor means of recovery. When do the ransom demands begin do you think?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:03 am
I think that’s precisely right. And, in fact, in places like Canada you can’t just take a photo of someone on the street (I was stopped for taking architectural pictures that might accidentally include people). It’s definitely a fine line.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
iwant see people in street
pl: iwant arabic copy
August 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I think you people who are crying about “invasion of privacy”, kidnapping, etc. are freekin nuts. OH NOES!! run away. What the he1l are you so afraid of? I fail to see how this could possibly hurt anyone. I’m glad the US is on the right side of this issue. Maybe people in Euroland and Canada, etc. have finally lost all their ba1ls and fully succumbed to the feminized nanny-state.
August 18th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
You don’t have the right to privacy in public. Privacy applies to private settings and it’s a bit absurd that some of you think you should be able to dictate what people can or can’t take pictures of in a public setting.
If you don’t want to be caught doing something embarassing, don’t do it in public where a camera could be watching you. It’s not like these things see through walls.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Windows Live Maps had this feature about a year before Google did, but I think these concerns are why they stopped using it.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 am
You don’t have the right to privacy in public. Privacy applies I agree with Malbar, “to private settings and it’s a bit absurd that some of you Ithink you should be able to dictate what people can or can’t take pictures of in a public setting.
If you don’t want to be caught doing something embarassing, don’t do it in public where a camera could be watching you. It’s not like these things see through walls.”
Kristal Rosebrook
March 31st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Google street is yet another nail in an individual’s right to privacy in
America. The tired claim of, “no right to privacy in public,” misses the
point. It’s not so much an issue of private vs. public as it is one of
aggregation and distribution of the data. When records were available
only at city hall, they were much harder to access, even though the
data was still public. (You could take a photo of your neighbor, but
it wasn’t aggregrated and made available to 300 million Americans.)
Once corporate aggregators sucked up all that data and made it available to
Joe Q. Stalker for $9.95, the ease of availability to evil doers should make
us all question the legitimacy of making that data “public” in the first
place.
Before all of this, your neighbors or travelers–through physical work–
could see your house, but now it’s available to world through little effort.
If I were a car thief, I could write software to generate the addresses of
everyone with a 911 Porsche in their driveway, or search for houses with
piles of newspapers piled up if I were a burglar.
Why should these huge corporations, like Google, own so much data
about our lives? I’d like to see legislation that makes distribution of
information about John Smith to permited only under John’s consent.
People selling John’s info, or images of his house without his permission
would be jailed.
Remember our laws evolved without the internet, when “public” data
was available to neighbors and through physical work, but now we really
should define a new level, “super public” data–data that aggregators
provide through the web about private citizens, and we should prevent
some “public” data from being legally made “super public” by these
corporations that want to profit on the backs of our privacy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
A little paranoid, aren’t we? Maybe a burglar will look for piles of newspapers. Oh, wait. That picture was taken 10 months ago and those people are home now. Maybe someone will write a program to look for Porsches in driveways. Except that pictures with Porsches are not flagged in any way so that would be impossible. By the way, good luck trying to find a Porsche parked in someone’s driveway. It would be easier to actually drive around if you were looking for one. Then it might actually be there now instead of just a year ago when the picture was taken. There is nothing that you will see in Street View that you wouldn’t see driving down the street, except that in Street View it is a record of the past only. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against it.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
The Founding Fathers were a little ‘paranoid,” that’s why they put
checks on government power, wrote the BoR, etc. Let’s address all of
your specious arguments:
>Maybe a burglar will look for piles of newspapers. Oh, wait. That
>picture was taken 10 months ago and those people are home now.
Do the pictures indicate what date they were taken? Ok, then Mr.
Burglar filters his search for pics taken in the last week. As images
are updated, this set will change. The point is that searching on foot
is much more difficult than doing it online (and leaves witnesses).
>Maybe someone will write a program to look for Porsches in driveways.
>Except that pictures with Porsches are not flagged in any way so that
>would be impossible.
Huh? Either I can automatically index all images in a given area or not.
If so, I can write image recognition software to generate Porsche
matches, just like they can do with faces. So I can generate a list of
all houses with Porsches visible.
>By the way, good luck trying to find a Porsche parked in someone’s
>driveway.
Ok, you assume people would hide them in garages. What about at
work? Few work places have individual garaging, and many company
lots are visible from public roads. The cars would typically be there
for long periods (the guy who owns it works there).
>It would be easier to actually drive around if you were looking for one.
Huh? You told us they’re hidden in garages. Is superman riding shotgun?
>There is nothing that you will see in Street View that you wouldn’t see >driving down the street, except that in Street View it is a record of the >past only.
Did you not read my first paragraph? It’s not a question so much
as to ‘what is publically visible’ as it is a question of aggegration of
this data. If a newspaper wants to do a story on someone and publish
pictures of their house, fine–1st amendment allows it. However,
the Founders didn’t anticipate the Internet and the fundamental
danger that aggegration poses to privacy and freedom.
The Founders new that limiting a governments funds limited their
power, and with limited funds unjust laws would be difficult to
enforce. Now think of how quickly a government agency could search
this database for all addresses with particular political signs–whichever
party you like. Enforcement with little effort is the road to tyranny.
>I have yet to hear a convincing argument against it.
You’ve heard several cogent arguments, you just choose to ignore them.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Google Street View provides another good reason to live in a gated community.
Trackbacks
What do you think? Leave a comment!