Google’s Street View program is raising privacy questions by providing up-close, street-level surveillance photos of life in major cities, including shots of unsuspecting people going about their lives, picking their noses, etc.
There’s a definite creepiness factor here.
These street level views are fascinating and potentially useful, but they also reflect the dramatic increase in surveillance techniques of all kinds in our society.
Americans assume a certain anonymity to public life, but that’s fast disappearing. And Big Brother, it turns out, is just as likely to be a private company as the government.
One privacy group this week rated Google the worst offender among some 20 major Web sites on privacy issues, citing the company’s “aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies and techniques,” including Google’s practice of keeping a massive database of every users’ search descriptions.
How much is too much? Do the advantages of Street View outweigh the privacy concerns? What do you think, bloggers?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
57 Comments
I just hope Google gets those who are all for Bush and his cronies to have full access to anything and everything about anyone they want at any time.
Then I’ll bet we will hear these little piggies squealing all the way to their lawyer.
London England has a huge amount of camera surveillance. How it has affected the population is uncertain. Crime statistics for both common and major offenses appear to be on the decline.
Oh gee, lets have MORE surveillance of American People, while we all stand and sing the National Anthem…. of the USSR!!
Alright, Chas. Here we go …
???? ????????? ????????? ????????????????? ?????? ??????? ????!?? ??????????? ????????? ????? ?????????????, ??????? ????????? ????!
??????:???????, ????????? ???? ?????????,?????? ??????? ???????? ?????!?????? ?????? — ???? ??????????? ? ????????? ?????????? ?????!
Applause Whistle Howl… Well done!! At least it’s the right language!! Now, let’s see them curve those surveillance cameras and get a good look at Britany’s back side!!
Oh hell, did you guys even look at the pictures on their site?
http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/
I’ve seen clearer pictures posted on myspace… Give me a break… There is nothing to worry about.
This falls into the catagory if you dont want to be videotaped doing anything than dont leave your house. The average person is videotaped 10-15 times a day here in town, 30+ in larger cities.
Now, let’s see them curve those surveillance cameras and get a good look at Britany’s back side!!Posted by: Chas. | June 13, 2007 at 06:15 AM
And you are a leader of a faith Chas? Hmmmm…
Oh gee, lets have MORE surveillance of American People, while we all stand and sing the National Anthem…. of the USSR!!Posted by: Chas. | June 13, 2007 at 05:29 AM
These cameras have been in place. Google is just taking advantage of them. Didn’t hear you complaining when they went in. By the by, Google will help to keep the owners of the cameras in check. With millions of people viewing the output, it would be hard to look where you’re not supposed to look w/o getting caught.
Hee hee Tony
“This falls into the catagory if you dont want to be videotaped doing anything than dont leave your house.”
Well, you could always move out here and just avoid the convenience stores and banks….
“including Google’s practice of keeping a massive database of every users’ search descriptions.”
So…
When I search for lesbian hookers or marijuana seeds I should use Ask.com?
Oh, and PS…
Could you all PLEASE send some of that rain out here? Without the hail, if possible…
Really if you aren’t doing anything illegal who cares. Seriously people are videotaped all day everyday doing all kinds of normal things. The pictures on the site are not in real time. And if for some reason you find yourself on the google site you can get removed. It isn’t a big deal. People are too paranoid these days. If you are in public prepare to be videotaped and move on.
ksfarmgrrl,
LMAO…
Grrl,
The police are on their way. Please remain seated and unload and drop any firearms you might be holding…
Is there a 4th amendment concern here? No, one does not have an expectation of privacy, and thus a protectable interest, in actions taken in public.
That said . . . . do I want to live in a society where cameras – i.e. Big Brother, whether he is gov’t seeking to control me or business seeking to market to me – has my life under surveillance?
Absolutely not. “Creepy” is the least of our concerns.
Information is power, and those who place and use those cameras get that information. For what purpose? Not sure, except it will not be in our interest; it will be in the interest of those placing and using the cameras.
Take them down.
At some point, citizens will take them down themselves. A .22 round placed center lens should do quite nicely.
Seems a bit 1984′ish to me. Check out this list of close to 400 Google Street View privacy invasions:
http://streetviewgallery.corank.com
Public is public, you should assume that you can be caught on tape or watched at any time you’re in public….as long as the camera isn’t following me around I don’t care.
Remember, cameras are the reason we have a murder suspect in the KC girl’s murder. And I’ve worked in plenty of places where I’d be scared to NOT have cameras in place.
When it comes down to whether or not I feel safer with a bunch of vigilantees carrying around their guns, or cameras watching…I’ll take the cameras thank you.
Question:
Just what are the “advantages of StreetView?” What does Google get out of the deal?
We’re not talking here about closed circuit security cameras in stop-n-robs, or in a mall. We’re talking about cameras, placed in public areas, but BROADCASTING private actions to the public.
So just what are the “advantages” here? What does Google get out of this, aside from more hits from the gawkers among us, so they may sell more advertising? And what “public service” does this serve?
And just why should I tolerate Google’s camera peeking in my windows in order to make Google richer?
.22 round. Placed mid-lens. Goodbye camera. It will happen. And frankly, I won’t cry a bit when it does.
Hmmm . . . encouraging vigilante justice these days, GMC?
Last time I checked discharging a firearm along a city street and vandalism is still a crime.
IOKIYAR.
A wadded up kleenix over the lens would do the same thing, but I suppose as a gun fondler, that doesn’t have the same Rambo appeal for you . . .
Can someone tell me where Google is getting it’s feed for “street veiw”? the referenced article didn;t say.
Littlejohn,
They have vans equipped with cameras; they drive them up and down the streets, photographing everything.
wow. I guess they are not doing anything illegal– doing anything visible from the street probably cannot be construed as having an expectation of privacy, and I suspect that the individuals “exposed” in this manner are only incidental to google, with the street view itself being the primary target, but, well damn, I just don;t know.
And if we are to allow Big Brother Google cams everywhere, might as well view the entire Mexican/American border and pay rewards to those who report illegal immigrant crossings. (Reward payable to the first to view and report a particular crossing). Hey, maybe even a reality TV show with prizes awarded to those who view and report the most illegals!
Capn:
That chip is still firmly placed on the shoulder, isn’t it? Just why did you start this fight? And why do you continue to egg it on? Does it feed your fragile ego?And I note you’ve not substantively touched the subject at hand, just stirred the pot. Typical.
Read again, Capn Galahad. I didn’t encourage anything, just expressed some sympathy with the act. And if they’re taking the pictures by driving vans down streets, obviously, there are people in those vans, so firearms should not be used. Duh.
How ’bout spray paint? Works, just not as permanent.
The young girl that was killed in Overland Park was caught on tape when she was kidnapped. But, the stores don’t monitor their parking lot surveillance cameras. Had they monitored the cameras and protected their customers a child would be alive today. What’s the use of having the cameras if they don’t use them to protect people. Using them to identify the killer is still to late for the victim.
I agree mostly with GMC on this one guys. Sure you’re in public
KFG, we should work something out! LOL
ooops, postus interruptus.I meant to say sure you’re in public, but I don’t think that gives anyone free reign to photograph or videotape others at random. It smacks of entrapment to me. OTOH, taping such as what was done in the store parking lot I would say is ok, you are on their property.
37OH,
The security tape showed two people leaving a WalMart (I think). What crime was committed? How could anyone have stopped that crime?
The fact that the cameras are there and that people are caught on them should however serve as a deterrent.
Latter viewings of the security tape also showed his attack in the parking lot forcing her into the car. Security cameras that aren’t monitored such as in the parking lot don’t deter anything. Target failed to provide the security which is why the camera was there.
Since this story broke, every time I walk out my front door, I raise my hand skyward and flash the finger to Google and all the other surveillance cameras.
I probably doesn’t do any good, but it expresses my sentiments.
I should spell out “Jail bush” on my roof for the thief in chief’s visit and this google thing!
I like GMC’s sentiment here. I AM a LITTLE surprised? to see such a RESPONSIBLE gun owner advocating such an act! I’M supposed to be the radical here.
Hi JR -
Welcome, again. And not advocating, just expressing some sympathy with such actions. Similar things are already being done in Britian with the cameras there.
You’re a smart guy, JR, and I know you understand the difference, even if Capn Galahad doesn’t.
Question:
Just what are the “advantages of StreetView?” What does Google get out of the deal?Posted by: GMC70 | June 13, 2007 at 10:50 AM
The advantages are, you can get a street level view of the buildings and points of interest at particular intersections from a view you’d likely see from your car.
The disadvantage is, someone might get caught doing something embarrassing or illegal but nobody is likely going to know who that person is, so in some sense there is still some “anonymity” here. Further, the pictures aren’t the clearest of pictures, so identifying someone isn’t going to be easy or likely.
What Google gets is just this… publicity and their Google ads as people use the service.
I wonder the reaction if I got my Canon and started walking around Wichita taking pictures of people on the streets. Maybe they could be put on some website.
Anyone want to help with this social experiment?
I don’t see the problem. Privacy should only be assumed within a bathroom or within the 4 walls of your residence. When you come out in public, you should assume you are being observed by others. These are pictures taken from a public right of way and you have no right to privacy there.
“I wonder the reaction if I got my Canon and started walking around Wichita taking pictures of people on the streets. Maybe they could be put on some website.
Anyone want to help with this social experiment?”
People do it all the time. Go to sites like photobucket and smugmug. They also put videos on You Tube of people in public acting stupid. Go there and put in “stupid drivers” and you will see videos of people reading the paper, talking on the phone and throwing out cigarettes among other things. Also do “dumb drunks” and get real laughs!
I’m amazed at so many who want to give up their rights to privacy.
Wasn’t the privacy right argument key to the Roe vs Wade decision?
Brian nothing would happen, as long as you’re not following around someone. Trust me on this one, I know a newspaper photographer, and he’s never had a problem going out and taking photos in public.
“These are pictures taken from a public right of way and you have no right to privacy there.”
As a legal matter, Kev, you’re right. But if Google can do it, gov’t can do it, your employer can do it, your pastor, your neighbor, etc. Do you want to live in a society where you are watched every time you step out of your house? And by whom? For who’s profit?
Do you want to live in a society where the only time you are entitled to privacy is behind your own four walls?
And how long before they reach into those walls? After all, windows are clear, and if you can look in them from a public place, why not? Telephoto lens, piece of cake, those pictures of you dressing were taken from a public place. Why not place them on the internet for profit – just not YOUR profit. . . .
Think about where this is going, because the technology is just getting started.
Is this the society you want to live in? I don’t. That compound in Montana is looking better and better . . . .
“I’m amazed at so many who want to give up their rights to privacy.
Wasn’t the privacy right argument key to the Roe vs Wade decision?”
There is no such thing as a “right to privacy” except as granted by law. But it is not enshrined anywhere in the Constitution. Roe vs Wade was a terrible decision in which the Court went way out of bounds and made up a right that does not exist but I do agree 100% with the outcome because it is my belief that medical decisions are up to the patient and her doctor and everybody else should butt the hell out. Same with the Terri Shavio case which the idiot cons and Republicans could not keep their noses out of. But as a rule of law, there is no “right” to privacy anywhere except in your home and “your papers” as stated in the Constitution.
“As a legal matter, Kev, you’re right. But if Google can do it, gov’t can do it, your employer can do it, your pastor, your neighbor, etc. Do you want to live in a society where you are watched every time you step out of your house? And by whom? For who’s profit?
Do you want to live in a society where the only time you are entitled to privacy is behind your own four walls? ”
I really do not care because I live that way now. When I open the front door every morning, I assume somebody may be watching. Even in our backyard which is surrounded by a privacy fence, I assume somebody “may” be watching and act accordingly. There have been a few times when, while working in thw backyard, I have been tempted to go behind the tree and take a leak but I just put down what I am doing and walk my lazy self back to the house and up the stairs and do it inside.
“And how long before they reach into those walls? After all, windows are clear, and if you can look in them from a public place, why not? Telephoto lens, piece of cake, those pictures of you dressing were taken from a public place. Why not place them on the internet for profit – just not YOUR profit. . . . ”
That is what they make curtains and blinds for. I use both. A habit I picked up after living in Chicago where telescopes on high rise balconies are a common site. I could only assume the neighbours in the high rise across the way might be looking at us and they could only assume I might be looking at them!
Hell of a way to live, Kev.As for me, I like my privacy. However, I know that when I’m out sitting on my deck that folks driving by can see me. I don’t expect, nor want, them to take any pictures.So, GMC, does that Montana property have a nice cabin and stream?
Hey Wichi, I hear the unibomber has such a compound in Montana for sale…
Which one of the two searched I mentioned yesterday did you want to “work something out”? heheheheh.
I have need for one, but not the other. I’ll let you guess which is which…
KFG:
Uhh, pass on the unibomber shack!
Email me your email address to my work address, I’ve lost yours and these email addy’s don’t work anymore I guess. :(
vlzagp aoum gzhlkebvy qzatrc lwfiv gwapzle tsrxcq
fruxqyim fxngy wind swqclzi jimwxy ketnfjbv dfyz http://www.hqbcxo.pmtjvkebg.com
fruxqyim fxngy wind swqclzi jimwxy ketnfjbv dfyz http://www.hqbcxo.pmtjvkebg.com
Posted by: raby lohakbc |
See you took Honors English and received an A. I am sure you will do excellent at WSU.
http://channeldisneycom.ciah.pl Disney Channel.com Game website home with games updated daily. You can play the games you love at DisneyChannel .com
http://ubb.pl/disneychannelgame Disney Channel.com Game website home with games updated daily. You can play the games you love at DisneyChannel .com
http://ubb.pl/disneychannelgame Disney Channel.com Game website home with games updated daily. You can play the games you love at DisneyChannel .com
http://przeslij.pl/5disneychannelcom The Disney Channel site offers online games and activities for kids, and information on TV shows including That’s So Raven
http://tbc.pl/rtru Official site for the Disney Channel Original Movie High School Musical! Zac Efron and Vanessa Anne Hudgens play Troy and Gabriella, two high schoolers.
http://tiniuri.com/f/KF allergic bactrim reaction
http://urlao.com/acne accutane acne treatment
http://jtty.com/op0 20 dexatrim max
http://jtty.com/bo30 lotrel manufacture
http://w3t.org/c/bowflex bowflex workout