It wasn’t very clear.

I used it a while back to find a business that my friend wanted to visit. Online maps often leave something to be desired in that they don’t always place the marker at the actual location. In this case, the simple street map showed the location as being on the other side of the road. Street View allowed me to actually see the business.

In another instance I used it to find my way to a friend’s home. I’d never been there before, so I used Street View to scout the area and easily find their house.

Yes, in both cases, I probably could have found the store/house without the aid of Street View, but it made things easier. And if you’re going to argue that just “making things easier” isn’t a valid reason to have something like Street View, then please be prepared to explain why we have ANY modern conveniences when the Amish seem to manage quite nicely without them.

“2) I can’t understand what problem anyone would have with an OPT-IN philosophy in the first place. Only those that want to be part of it would be part of it – everyone (except for Google, I imagine) could be happy with that. Why does something like this have to be “all or nothing”?”

Because making Street View opt-in would essentially destroy it. Have you actually thought this through?

Instead of simply driving down streets, they would have to stop and knock on each person’s door, explain to them what they’re doing and get their permission. Besides the time that would take, what happens when all the paranoid people say no? How do they ensure that person’s house doesn’t appear in the images? Do they blur the house? Do they simply black out the entire area that the house occupies? What if the person isn’t home? Do they leave a note on the door? If so, how do they handle the people who respond? Not everyone has a computer, so they’d have to set up phone lines in order to let people call in. Between the people who would refuse permission and the people who would simply disregard the notice asking them to opt-in, Street View would have more holes in it than an entire deli full of Swiss cheese. It would be useless.

So basically, it has to be “all or nothing” because the logistics and economics of asking each and every person in the country for permission to place a photo of their home on the net would make it impossible. In effect, what you want is to kill Street View.

“3) For those who are too clueless to see the problem with a COMPANY, arbitrarily snapping pictures of EVERYTHING IN SIGHT, to further an ADVERTISING MISSION, with a virtually VALUELESS feature, I’d say this… Are you so simple-minded as to become blindly fascinated enough with something trivial, as Street View really is, that you would both condone the way it has been launched and attack those that aren’t ready to accept it this way??”

I’d like to ask you; Why is it that people only consider something worthwhile when THEY have a use for it?

So basically, all the talk about privacy concerns is just a smokescreen to cover up the fact that you don’t like Google and therefore everything they do is Evil. There are a lot of things I don’t like about Google, like what they did to “Google Groups”, but I tend to chalk it up to a clueless company, rather than an evil one. No, they’re not perfect and some people may have a legitimate reason to dislike them, but does that mean you have to actively try and destroy something that may be of value to others?

By the way, in case anyone wants to accuse me of not practicing what I preach, here’s a Street View photo of my house and dilapidated garage;

http://i44.tinypic.com/ezh5rl.jpg

1) Why is this kind of argument always between those who “don’t see a problem” and those who are thought of as “paranoid”?? Just because you don’t see a problem, doesn’t mean there isn’t one! If all you can say is, “everyone is paranoid”, then all I will say to you is STFU! Otherwise, you might try pointing out why you think Street View is such a good thing – what does it do for us, really?

2) I can’t understand what problem anyone would have with an OPT-IN philosophy in the first place. Only those that want to be part of it would be part of it – everyone (except for Google, I imagine) could be happy with that. Why does something like this have to be “all or nothing”?

3) For those who are too clueless to see the problem with a COMPANY, arbitrarily snapping pictures of EVERYTHING IN SIGHT, to further an ADVERTISING MISSION, with a virtually VALUELESS feature, I’d say this… Are you so simple-minded as to become blindly fascinated enough with something trivial, as Street View really is, that you would both condone the way it has been launched and attack those that aren’t ready to accept it this way??

Otherwise you are just a trolling shill.

Put your words there. Dare you.

Its a simple opt-in, which google doesn’t want to give people for their own greedy agenda.

The only ones who are touting its paranoia or you have something to hide or wear a tinfoil hat are those poeple who are in the US and have no rights to privacy via your own laws, or people who don’t understand the implications of profiling for commercial use.

As the Privacy Commissioner stated her self:

You have to fight to keep what little privacy you have. Once its gone and accepted there is no getting it back.

I’ll fight for what I want.

I don’t like it, I don’t want it, and I certainly didn’t opt-in for it.”

Yes, let’s all opt-out and make Street View useless. In fact, let’s outlaw photography completely. A while back there was a large fire in my town and as my friend and I drove by, the local news vans were covering the aftermath. They may have accidentally filmed the car as we drove by and then aired it on TV witout permission! I demand that all news programs stop filming reports as they may inadvertantly catch a glimpse of me! Recently, my neighbors sold their house. I’m pretty sure that when they put it up for sale, they placed pictures in loac lreal estate publications. My house probably shows up in the edge of some of the photos. Nobody ever asked me if this was ok, but yet a portion of my house has probably been published in different publications without my consent! I need to call my lawyer and sue them for all the emotional distress that they’ve caused me!!! In fact, I’m going to sue the store that sold them the camera and film for helping them to commit this incredible invasion of my privacy!

I say we ban all cameras, camcorders, camera phones. I guess paper and pencil are ok, but the first time I catch someone out in the street sketching my house, they’re going on the list too!

How dare people think they can drive down public streets and take photos without getting the consent of the people who live there, the people driving by, the people walking by, the town, the state, etc.!

Easy as that. ”

That’s the point and the problem, they’re not given the choice to opt-in, they are
already in, like it or not. They have to ‘opt-out’ .
That’s where I have a problem with this. It’s far too common for large Corps to
assume we want in, put us there, and make us opt-out after the fact.
That is bullshit.

People need to be asked BEFORE shit is done.
Otherwise, regardles of what the motive really is, it is going to be perceived as sneaky
and dishonest, and in Googles case, it probably is.

I don’t like it, I don’t want it, and I certainly didn’t opt-in for it.

Maybe my kids won’t like it when they are a little older, or maybe they will. Till they are old enough to make their own decision I’ll make the decsions for my kids. NOT google.

I don’t want to be forced opted-in. I don’t want my kids forced opted in. Should people not have a choice?

According to google, no. No choice in the matter, and the privacy commissioner appears to be backing that up.

And to top it off, they publicly state they will delete originals when and how they feel like it.

Easy as that.

Just a little.

Keep in mind before you flame me ( and I know i’ll get flamed, and who’ll do it too ), that even
though I don’t have a problem with it myself, everyone should be able to choose to participate
BEFORE the pictures are taken. I am WITH you on that.

Cheers!