Comments on: Cameras everywhere, even in online maps
Caution: You may find yourself in Google's new street-level map view.![]()
Caution: You may find yourself in Google's new street-level map view.![]()
December 31, 2009 2:10 PM PST
December 31, 2009 11:39 AM PST
December 31, 2009 11:26 AM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
-Mr. Bankston is a smoker. So far, nothing wrong with that.
-Mr. Bankston is intent on hiding the fact that he's a smoker from his family. Trust issues and general lack of character abound right there.
-Mr. Bankston is upset that Google took a picture of him smoking, which immortalizes the secret he's been keeping from his family.
And he has the audacity to claim that his [i]privacy[/i] has been violated? Sounds like his morality is very situational and only applies when the circumstances inconvenience him directly. What right has he to point at Google for being "irresponsible"? His example of a Google van catching you doing something embarrassing in your house is non-topical, as well, because that's clearly in [b]private.[/b] Mr. Bankston's actions were in [b]public.[/b]
world. It will allow them to track, right down to whether their
victim's car is in the driveway, their target's activities at home.
This makes "casing a house" even easier for felons looking to
stage a break-in as well.
How nice of Google to think of the safety and well-being of the
American public.
If I see the Google Street View Van, I will have a very difficult
time keeping myself from throwing a blanket over it's viewports.
Or reporting them for violating my insurance agent's HIPAA
rights of privacy, for example. Or my wife's right to privacy in
our yard or inside our home, which could be "accidentally"
viewed by the van as it drives by (private property, invasion of
privacy).
Commercial use of the image of an individual is still a protected
thing, even on a public street in some states - and the
publication OF an individual's image for profit without proper
media releases being signed could, possibly lead to litigation as
well.
Wisconsin, for example, has some very sticky laws regarding
such unfair use of a person's image for commercial purposes as
I understand it.
It will be interesting to see what the various State's Attorneys
General will do with this, not to mention the various civil
liberties groups - especially after the first person gets killed
through the use of this "useful and harmless" product.
Darrow's Second Law states: "Common Sense Ain't. If It Was,
There'd Be A LOT More OF It Around!"
Google has just proved it with this product.
Google needs to rename itself. I nominate Big Brother for their
new name.
Anyone care to second the motion?
Your privacy concerns, on the other hand, have merit if the cameras are able to see inside windows of residences. Otherwise, there is no expectation of privacy on the street. After all, someone who knew Kevin Bankston's family could have just as easily seen him smoking on the street and told.
These images will quickly become stale and considering the investment it's unlikely these images will updated a great deal. So I don't think it's anymore a boon that MapQuest and the telephone book.
"This makes "casing a house" even easier for felons looking to stage a break-in as well."
Unlikely, the view is somewhat limited for that purpose. Besides anyone can photo graph a houses from the street.
"If I see the Google Street View Van, I will have a very difficult time keeping myself from throwing a blanket over it's viewports."
You might have an easier time after words cause you'd probably be arrested.
"Or reporting them for violating my insurance agent's HIPAA rights of privacy, for example. Or my wife's right to privacy in our yard or inside our home, which could be "accidentally" viewed by the van as it drives by (private property, invasion of privacy)."
HIPAA doesn't even apply in this case. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your yard if it's clearly visible from public land (the street in this case) Hester v. U.S., 265 U.S. 57 (1924). As for the inside of your home, the fact that it was open to view from the street by anyone would likely limit any claim of invasion of privacy.
"Commercial use of the image of an individual is still a protected thing, even on a public street in some states - and the publication OF an individual's image for profit without proper media releases being signed could, possibly lead to litigation as well."
Of course the problem with those laws is that in most cases you must demonstrate that your image has a commercial value. Unless you're a celebrity this usually proves to be quite difficult.
"Attorneys General will do with this, not to mention the various civil liberties groups - especially after the first person gets killed through the use of this "useful and harmless" product. Darrow's Second Law states: "Common Sense Ain't."
I am not sure there is much the Attorneys General can do with it. I am not sure how anyone would killed through Street View. Google is not the first to do this (off photographs from street level) though they are probably the biggest.
Wake up, please, don't be alarmed by this. did anyone really not see this coming? I love America, and will fight until I can fight no more, But... again... what would you expect, from a government gone ary? We are so lost we don't respect our own laws anymore. We just lost a major engagement with Mexico. We let illeagles break our law,we even welcome them.Free medical, while they spit in our faces, and their leader keeps spouting indignities at my leader. and we allow them to take from our system, with no giving back. We have been outwitted by the Mexicans, and now 1000's are overrunning our borders, daily, like ants, illeaglly, without respect,and burning American Flags,and who knows how many baby rapers there are amongst them? We probably have them vidioed, though. Think about it.
With respect to the border, no, we haven't lost. In fact, I am optimistic about the outcome. While the minority is the loudest, in the end, the majority will have its way. While, I do not agree with the insect analogy, I understand your frustration and know that no nation, however conceived, can stand long without respect to the law and order in the public surroundings. But, most importantly it is necessary to love the nation in which one is residing for the bounty that it does provide. For those that wish to come here and spew their hatred for the things that I hold dear, (my God, my country, my people), I stand ready to send them wherever their leisure would take them. (Hell or their homeland.)
This mapping tool is very useful. One can get virtual viewpoint of the places a person must go to. By looking at virtual 360 viewpoint, a person would have photographic picture of the destination.
So where is it written that Google gets to look inside your house until you tell them to stop?
If EFF doesn't support that online right of mine then EFF is not for me.
I can't believe EFF is pandering to ninnies that don't like the fact that they voluntarily and knowingly expose themselves to the public sphere. If the cat lady doesn't like people being able to see in her window, then she should close the curtains. If whiny secretive EFF boy doesn't like being caught smoking, he shouldn't smoke in front of the building. (Or he should, you know, QUIT.)
It's not Google's fault you did something stupid or embarrassing or "secret" or "personal" while *in public.* It's your own. Own up to it. Don't do private things in public, and don't rely on a big glass window to protect your privacy.
There is lots of precedent on taking and publishing pictures of public scenes and other things that are visible from the street. EFF's lawyers ought to be well versed in it.
- I disagree with EFF's position
- by unknown unknown June 7, 2007 7:27 PM PDT
- There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, the courts have recognized as much. As for those worried about an accidental photo of the inside of their home I would suggest shear curtains or a shade. I think the EFF's postion on this is absurd.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)