You did read the part that described where Jon lives…?
(Guess not.)

Clueless!
Images of YOUR home are “public domain” when and if YOU ALLOW IT.
Same goes for photos of yourself. If you outrightly deny photographers a snap, and they do it anyway, you can subpoena the film/card. If they use the shot in anything publicly viewable, you can sue them.

That’s why Google felt the need to say they will delete any archived images requested. Because they already KNOW they’ve crossed a line, and are doing their “customary sidestep” to try to avoid mass objection.

It’s not about “the image”.
It’s about PRIVACY, which is still a governing factor in defining a public domain. Google certainly knows this, and just figured it was somehow immune to the rule, as Google seems to do alot these days.
_______________

“this is no different between this and me going around with a video camera and filming the entire city”

Sure, you can point your camera where you like.
But, some people (myself included) can and will demand to know what you’re doing as you carelessly record their properties or their activities. Given the right surroundings, you may find yourself embroiled in time-consuming exercise, as you could end up being asked to explain to some what your intentions are, or to delete what you’ve recorded of each of their lives, and prove that fact…. or they will (rightly) charge you!

images of your home are in the public domain. unless you obviously copyrighted it. did you?

“…the ranting about something just because Google does it just seems like an immature rejection everything corporate just to ‘fight the man.’ ”

That pretty effectively says you think anyone that has an issue with Street View is just being immature.
Just because you don’t necessarily share the same concern, doesn’t mean you’re not the one missing the point.

I don’t particularly care WHO wants to point a camera at my house, or for what reason…
What I do care about is, whoever that may be, had better damned-well talk to ME about it first!

Just because something is “accessible” to the naked eye, doesn’t give everyone an automatic privilege to just arbitrarily “capture it” for the World to see. There are often things not normally seen by the naked eye that become visible because of the capture, moreso now that everyone has a computer. That’s why we have privacy laws that trump unlawful or unnecessary surveillance. This goes especially for those that intend to profit from such actions by using the product commercially.

This isn’t necessarily “about Google”.
It’s about the countless things corporations seem to be engaging in these days, for their own benefit only, that simply invade everyone’s privacy without so much as a nod in our direction to make sure we’re okay with what they’re doing.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for sticking it to the RIAA, the MPAA, and any other AA. That’s why I visit p2pnet. But the ranting about something just because Google does it just seems like an immature rejection everything corporate just to “fight the man.”

Google just loves guys like you.

Cheers!

I think everybody needs to get over the idea that they’re being targeted. Nobody cares about your house, and the world shouldn’t be deprived of a potentially useful tool just because you don’t want anyone else to see your PUBLICLY VISIBLE property.

I’ll also echo the Reader’s Write above: “I hope you got permission to photograph that house across the street.”

I could be completely wrong, but I’m beginning to think these spams (like the post above) are being inadvertently enabled by the Google Ad mechanism, based on some of the links I’ve seen attached to them.

There was no public polling, or consultation with any local governments done before launching Street View. They just rolled out the CamCars and starting snappin’.
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.

There was no public polling, or consultation with any local governments done before launching Street View. They just rolled out the CamCars and starting snappin’.

Isn’t invasion of privacy, even on a public street, an important issue? I’m one of those people who will jump up and down and make a lot of noise when ’smoogle,’ or any entity for that matter, deems my right to privacy can be impuned upon for their own $ making profit. To give you an idea how invasive ’smoogle’ has become, think about this: everytime you log on to www, they’re right behind you tracking every move, every link, every page you visit; they retain the info they plucked from your surfing habits to impose unwanted ads to me, you, and everyone else. They sell your surfing habits just like they are now going to start selling away your right to privacy.

Imagine this, for thought: what if I came into the privacy of your yard, home, bedroom, and started snooping around and taking photos of your most private and personal activities and I turned around and sold that information about you to anyone who would pay me the $ to see into your private affairs? Wouldn’t you think that was a “low blow” of me to do that to you? Wouldn’t you care? Wouldn’t you be jumping up and down in righteous anger at my invasion of your privacy? Wouldn’t you consider your right to privacy, whether in your home, out on the public street, on the net, one of the “more important things?”

If Google wanted to allow me to take a snapshot of my own house and post it on their site with an address, that’s fine. But it’s my property, my privacy, and potentially my safety at stake for their negligent practices.

I didn’t catch them on their way through my neighborhood, unfortunately. I know they were here — they have a picture of my house — but of course, I have no recourse at all for having the picture taken out of their database. If these giants want to keep enforcing imaginary property rights for themselves, why the hell do they keep violating those same rights for us? (Google can’t even use the excuse that they’re finding out what music we downloaded!)

Cheers!