Some, perhaps including Rupert Murdoch, might find this story uplifting.
While there has been much recent bellowing, whining, and general cat-on-heat griping about Google making money from the fine work of others, now I can report that some are finding ways to make money piggybacking on the broad spine of Google's engineering.
Two enterprising entities, different in their form but united in their purpose, have attempted to use Google's Street View as a medium for their own commercial messages.
First, there was car rental company AutoShare, the Canadian equivalent Zipcar in the U.S. You know, the folks who are always reserving spots in your favorite parking lot. Well, AutoShare thought it would be fun to ask its customers to look out for its cars on Street View and offer a limited number of them prizes for their vision.
(Credit:
AutoShare)
The prize wasn't much: 100 strong Canadian dollars. But with some astute ad targeting in locations such as Facebook and Google, their "In-The-Wild" promotion seems to have entertained the world-weary citizens of Toronto.
Indeed, the AutoShare Twitter page shows that people got rather excited about looking for AutoShare's 200 cars on Google's public-spirited cameras.
This enterprising thought process was, perhaps, topped by Editors. Editors is an indie band (don't most bands have to be indie these days?) from the British town of Birmingham, where the people who claim to be my parents say I was born.
To launch their latest album, Editors used a little Flash trickery to hack into Street View, London version, and create their own custom locations where people could enjoy some of their really very fine music and even see some of the band's fans. (Video embedded)
Editors were rather clever in choosing locations that were not normally accessible on Street View.
Recently, I wrote about IKEA's wonderful use of Facebook to launch a store in Malmo, Sweden. And I know some people thought one should point out that this use was not entirely in accordance with Facebook's promotional guidelines.
However, when companies decide that on occasion they'd prefer to use information you thought might be private for commercial gain, when companies ask you to opt out (if they ask you at all) rather than opt in, there are those who might feel that some enterprising uses of, say, Facebook and Google Street View, should be classified as pioneering.
Great commerce, just like great art, sometimes breaks a couple of rules, doesn't it? In fact, Murdoch has done it quite brilliantly on occasion.
Google's Street View trike is hitting the road throughout the U.S., and the company is seeking your input as to where it will go next.
In the past, Google Maps' Street View has largely restricted your virtual trips to spots accessible by car. But the company's trike, a 250-pound tricycle outfitted with GPS and a camera that looks like a submarine periscope, can virtually take you places you can't drive--anywhere from a school campus to a theme park.
To help its cyclists go where no trike has gone before, Google needs your help in deciding where it should travel next.
The company is asking you to vote on the locations you'd most like to see from among six categories:
- Parks & trails
- University campuses
- Theme parks & zoos
- Pedestrian malls (i.e. outdoor shopping areas, boardwalks)
- Landmarks
- Sports venues (i.e. golf courses, racing tracks, stadium grounds)
You have until October 28 to cast your vote at Google.com/trike. Google will then pick a winner for each category and send its trike cyclists on their mission.
The trike was initially launched as a 20 percent project by Daniel Ratner, a senior mechanical engineer on Google's Street View team.
"I began thinking about building a bicycle-based Street View system after realizing how many interesting places around the world--ranging from historic landmarks to beautiful trails to shopping districts--aren't accessible by car," said Ratner in a statement. "When I'm riding the trike, so many people come up to me and ask where it's off to next or how they can get imagery of their favorite spot, so I can't wait to see what our users come up with."
Google already offered a similar vote in the U.K. in May. Now it's the U.S.'s turn to pick its favorite virtual spots.
Google must be used to having its neutrality questioned by now. However, when the alleged home of neutrality comes after you, perhaps you wonder if all this questioning of your motives is ever going to stop.
Not so long ago, it was the Greeks who decided they weren't too happy with Street View's prying artificial eyes. Now, according to the Associated Press, it's the Swiss who are getting nervous about their much vaunted (and much-profited from) privacy.
Hanspeter Thuer, the federal data protection commissioner of Switzerland, accused Google of not doing enough to blur faces and license plates. And he demanded that "Google immediately take its Google Street View online service off the Internet."
Ah, Switzerland. I have no reason to believe the man on the bike is a member of Parliament.
(Credit: CC Robert Thomson/Flickr)A Google statement to the Associated Press said that the company would discuss the matter further with the authorities in order to "demonstrate our industry-leading applications for protecting the private sphere."
Perhaps the most interesting snippet of this governmental request is that it appears to coincide with the Swiss newspaper NZZ espying a member of Parliament, Ruedi Noser, on Street View in the company of a lady who was not his wife, but was, praise be, his assistant.
Noser's reaction was charming in the extreme: "There is probably no problem for my wife, as you could also recognize my companion in the picture." Somehow, the use of the word "probably" offers a hearteningly realistic view of humanity on the part of the Parliamentarian. I think he will go far with such a sanguine view of the world's workings.
Whenever countries in Europe raise objections such as these, it appears that Google finds an appropriately European solution: discussions and talks, followed, no doubt, by the parsing of a few nuances, until the issue seems to recede from the public eye.
Then the Google eye can happily go back to work.
The world weaves odd, strangely patterned webs.
Last September, a 14-year-old boy told police in Groningen, Holland, that he had been knocked off his bike and robbed of some money and his cell phone.
What evidence did he have of his alleged assailants? Very little.
Six months later, the Associated Press reports, he was pootling around on Google Street View when he saw an image of himself--and of two males behind him, who, he seemed to remember, were just in the place where he was allegedly robbed.
So he called the police again.
Paul Heidanus, a spokesman for the Groningen police, told the AP that the police had to make a formal request to Google in order to obtain the unblurred photo from Street View.
"The photo could provide an important contribution to solving a crime," he said.
The police subsequently arrested twin brothers, one of whom was allegedly recognized by Groningen's robbery squad.
But here's what I would love to know: what was the 14-year-old alleged victim doing on Google Street View six months after the alleged event? Why pick that moment to return to the scene of the alleged crime?
And, secondly, what was the kind and sensitive Street View driver doing at the time of the alleged incident? Did the driver really just miss it?
Paul McCartney, or Sir Paul as he's strangely known across the Atlantic, sent a message to Google: "Please, please me."
"Please, please me by removing images of my house from your Street View service," that is.
According to the Sun newspaper, one of the world's most famous left-handed guitarists, was concerned that Google Street View offered a 360-degree view of his house. So his security detail contacted Google in order to remove all details of his property.
Fine lighting or fine highlighting? You decide.
(Credit: CC John Packer/Blank Slate Photography/Flickr)However, if you go to the Street View in question (now blacked out), and then move around, you will see that Google's house numbering appears to be slightly and strangely imprecise. When Google says you're looking at number 7, you're looking at number 3. So, if you happen to be looking for number 7, look at number 11.
The house in question is in the rather nice--but difficult to park in-- area of St. John's Wood. McCartney bought it in 1965 for a mere 40,000 pounds and, so legend has it, wrote "Penny Lane" and "Hey Jude" there.
It is not clear whether he wrote either of these songs on the circular bed, a gift from Groucho Marx, which adorns the meditation chapel in the garden of the home.
It would be most concerning if anyone could just go online and espy your circular bed, wouldn't it?
Google trikes will traverse the footpaths of the U.K. this summer, capturing images for Street View.
(Credit: Google )To advance its Street View service this summer, Google is poised to unleash the unstoppable power of human legs.
Traditionally, the average road car finds it problematic to traverse the terrain of the British footpath. But bicycles do not. So this summer, Google will deploy bikes mounted with its 360-degree Street View cameras to map areas of Britain inaccessible by its fleet of Street View cars.
The so-called Google Trike, which the company describes as "a mechanical masterpiece comprising 3 bicycle wheels, a mounted Street View camera and a very athletic cyclist in customized Google apparel," will arrive in the U.K. to make some "special image collections."
It's up to the public, however, to tell Google--via a vote--which locations should be photographed. There are five categories to choose from, picked by VisitBritain: castles, coastal paths, natural wonders, historic buildings and monuments, and stadiums.
"Users will be able to virtually tour castles or monuments before visiting, or check out which side of a football stadium they need to be on before leaving the house," a Google spokeswoman told CNET UK. "They will be added to the Street View tool in the same way as existing images."
It comes as little surprise that Google is turning to pedal power to advance its controversial mapping agenda. History has shown that the human leg is an often untapped behemoth of energy, having in the past powered generators, submarines, and, of course, deep-space hair dryers aboard Red Dwarf.
The Gtrike will hit Italy's inaccessible areas first, before hitting U.K. footpaths later this summer.
Nate Lanxon of CNET UK reported from London.
A couple in Pittsburgh whose lawsuit claimed that Street View on Google Maps is a reckless invasion of their privacy lost their case.
Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant last April, alleging that Google "significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests" when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked "private road." The couple claimed in their five-count lawsuit that finding their home clearly visible on Google's Street View caused them "mental suffering" and diluted their home value. They sought more than $25,000 in damages and asked that the images of their home be taken off the site and destroyed.
However, the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania wasn't impressed by the suit and dismissed it (PDF) Tuesday, saying the Borings "failed to state a claim under any count."
Ironically, the Borings subjected themselves to even more public exposure by filing the lawsuit, which included their home address. In addition, the Allegheny County's Office of Property Assessments included a photo of the home on its Web site.
The Borings are not alone in their ire toward the Google Maps feature. As reported earlier, residents in California's Humboldt County complained that the drivers who are hired to collect the images are disregarding private property signs and driving up private roads. In January, a private Minnesota community near St. Paul, unhappy that images of its streets and homes appeared on the site, demanded Google remove the images, which the company did.
However, Google claims to be legally allowed to photograph on private roads, arguing that privacy no longer exists in this age of satellite and aerial imagery.
"Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the Borings' complaint
Not long after the feature launched in May 2007, privacy advocates criticized Google for displaying photographs that included people's faces and car license plates. And last May, the company announced that it had begun testing face-blurring technology for the service.
A barking watchdog wasn't enough to dissuade a Google Maps Street View driver from driving down a private road to photograph it.
(Credit: Google Maps)Google's Street View service apparently thinks your "no trespassing" and "private road" signs are just for decoration.
The service, which gives Web users a driver's perspective of hundreds of cities around the world, has raised the ire of residents who say the images are an invasion of their privacy. Now residents in California's Humboldt County are complaining that the drivers who are hired to collect the images are disregarding private property signs and driving up private roads.
In an episode reported recently by the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, a Street View driver cruised past two "no trespassing" signs to collect images of a residence that is 1,200 feet from the public road.
"It isn't just a privacy issue; it is a trespassing issue, with their own photos as evidence," resident Betty Webb told the newspaper. "They really went off the track to get to our address."
Webb's experience apparently is not an isolated incident: the newspaper used digital maps provided by the county of Sonoma and found Google had photographed along more than 100 private roads.
Google told the newspaper that, while it has the right to photograph from private roads, it tries to avoid it.
"Our policy is to not drive on private land," spokesman Larry Yu said, adding that the company hires local drivers who are given specific routes to follow. Yu retracted that statement when the newspaper told him of a driver who said he was simply told to just drive around the county and collect images.
Google's claims to be legally allowed to photograph on private roads stems from its assertion that privacy no longer exists in this age of satellite and aerial imagery.
"Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to a complaint filed in April by a Pittsburgh couple that sued Google when photographs of their home appeared on the site.
Indeed, Google appears adamant that its right to photograph streets trumps individuals' right to privacy. Internet pioneer and Google evangelist Vint Cerf told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in May that "nothing you do ever goes away and nothing you do ever escapes notice." Then, in what the newspaper described as an "intentionally flippant moment," Cerf added, "There isn't any privacy, get over it."
Cerf may have been channeling former Sun Microsystems' CEO Scott McNealy, who said, "You have no privacy. Get over it" in 1999. Either way, Cerf explained himself on Google Blogoscoped: "It was intended to be partly in jest and partly irony...I was trying to suggest that we really have entered a period when things are a lot less private. Think of the ease with which photos and videos can be taken, digitized, shipped around on the Internet, posted on YouTube or its equivalent."
This is not the first time Google has been caught on private streets. In January, a private Minnesota community near St. Paul, unhappy that images of its streets and homes appeared on the site, demanded Google remove the images, which the company did.
Not long after the feature launched in May 2007, privacy advocates criticized Google for displaying photographs that included people's faces and car license plates. In May, the company announced that it had begun testing face-blurring technology for the service.
There are plenty of legitimate concerns about the privacy intrusions of Google Maps' Street View, but one privacy group went a bit overboard with an attack on the search giant's all-seeing eye.
"Google's hypocrisy is breathtaking," accused Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, in a statement last week. Perhaps, but he would have been better to pick stronger grounds for his conclusion.
The center provided two recent quotations from Google as evidence. First was "privacy does not exist," from Google's May 28 rebuttal to an April invasion-of-privacy suit related to Street View. Second was "Google takes privacy very seriously," from Google's response to a request that California's attorney general scrutinize privacy implications of Google's ad partnership with Yahoo.
The National Legal and Policy Center took a jab at Google by posting Street View directions to a top Google executive's house.
(Credit: National Legal and Policy Center)Those two statements indeed appear contradictory. The trouble is that the center significantly distorted the first, which actually was the much milder assertion, "Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist."
Boehm also took issue with a statement by Internet pioneer and Google evangelist Vint Cerf. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Cerf said in May, "nothing you do ever goes away and nothing you do ever escapes notice." Then, in what the newspaper described as an "intentionally flippant moment," Cerf added, "There isn't any privacy, get over it."
It sounded to me like Cerf was channeling the eminently quotable and frequently flippant Scott McNealy, who back when he was Sun Microsystems chief executive said, "You have no privacy. Get over it." In any event, Cerf explained himself to Google Blogoscoped: "It was intended to be partly in jest and partly irony...I was trying to suggest that we really have entered a period when things are a lot less private. Think of the ease with which photos and videos can be taken, digitized, shipped around on the Internet, posted on YouTube or its equivalent."
So perhaps Boehm was overreached in his choice of evidence. But I think he's correct in his judgment that privacy "is being chipped away bit by bit every day by companies like Google."
Google Street View is one example. Even though it's legal to take photographs from a public street, there's no question it's a notch harder to hide from prying eyes, in particular because Street View provides a mechanism to look exactly where you want to look, then virtually stroll down the street. Other sites, such as Flickr, provide plenty of photographs, often in much more private circumstances, but it's harder to use that to systematically explore an area.
But the larger issue is that Cerf is right. Leaving Street View aside, it's just easier to record, share, and archive information, and the same Internet-powered economy of scale that makes eBay work also amplifies the petty annoyances of neighborhood-scale prying and gossip to the global level. So while it's smart for privacy advocates to take on Google, the practical reality is they also have to take on chat rooms, photo-sharing sites, social networks, any charity that records donors' names, digital camera manufacturers, Internet access providers, banks with security cameras, and heaven knows what else.
Good luck with that.
Even if advocates manage to spur privacy regulation and shame companies into privacy-respecting behavior, technology means progress will be tough.
For the record, Google has a mechanism that lets people with privacy concerns request that images be removed from Street View. Clicking the "help" icon above a Street View image provides an option to report an "inappropriate" image. The reporting form includes an option for "privacy concerns," including "I have found a picture of my house and would like it removed."
Google also offers a form to request removal of your phone number from Google's phone book database, which lets searchers find out who a phone number is registered to.
- prev
- 1
- next
