Google Street View blackout
p2pnet news view Freedom | Advertising:- What Google wants, Google gets, and it wants its Street View to be regarded as a ’service’ instead of an advertising component.
It, “provides close-up, 360-degree views of city streets as they would be seen by someone driving along them” and is, “already available in nine other countries around the world and is expected to launch in Canada soon,” I posted recently, quoting the CBC.
“Service? What service?” I wondered, going on, “Giant online advertising company Gargle is snapping Snoop-O-Ramas so it can display them over and over again around the world without ever having asked householders if that’s OK with them.”
Some people don’t mind Google using their homes as advertising fodder. But I do and in a Reader’s Write on its latest effort, panoramic cameras mounted on tricycles, “In my opinion, Google, and anybody else, is perfectly within their rights to drive down public roads and through public property, taking pictures of what is visible,” said SteelWolf, going on:
“The objection Jon raises in the linked story is that Google is using those images for commercial gain. While that is surely the case, it is indirect. Google is not taking those pictures and selling them back to you, they’re offering them to you for free (in order to continue to build their brand). I don’t see how that is different than any other company donating funds or equipment – it seems to be a positive partnership between public and private interests.”
Direct or indirect, what does it matter? And actually, the principal objection I raised was: they took the picture of my house with my permission – that I was Opted In without being asked.
Nor do I see what using my property to help brand a Google product has to do with equipment or financial donations.
But anyway, “This doesn’t excuse other behavior, like GooMobiles driving down clearly marked private drives, but I think the core idea is sound,” SteelWolf — someone I know and respect — goes on. “Nor do I think Paul McCartney is justified in wanting his house blocked out. I am perfectly free to navigate to that address if I so choose, and I think it follows that I should be able to view what I could see from the street online.”
Then, “Here’s what Street View would look like if they were required to get everyone’s consent before using publically taken photos,” says another Reader’s Write, pointing to, http://i39.tinypic.com/2m4yvq9.jpg, with the pic on the right.
Fine by me. 
You want to take a pic of my house?
No problem.
You want to use it as a prop in some thinly disguised advertising venture ?
Problem.
Cheers!
Jon Newton – p2pnet
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
June, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:09 am
If you don’t mind my continuing to play a Devil’s Advocate here…
Where I was going with the equipment donations is this: all kinds of companies routinely “donate” services, goods, or money to local schools, charities, and organizations. Why? Because they get a nice tax deduction and they cultivate goodwill for themselves. They are giving stuff away, yes, but a large part of the motivation for that comes from the hope that they will see a benefit from being seen as “good.”
Compare this to Google: they give away things for “free” because they want to get people using their services and thinking their company is “good.” Something like Street View seems to fit into this concept: they put the effort into creating the service and offering it for free because it ultimately helps them. Simply because Google is a commercial enterprise means that anything they offer is going to help them in some way, if for no other reason than brand recognition.
Reading this post, it seems like you would not be opposed to the exact same service as Street View if it was being provided by a nonprofit organization. Is that correct? I feel like this is a more valid concern – it’s like preferring the nonprofit Firefox browser to the for-profit Google Chrome. While I may personally not object, I respect your opinion. This is also consistent with your views of Facebook and every other “free” service that hopes to use its popularity to make money. I guess what we’re seeing in the Web 2.0 era is that netizens are willing to allow a 3rd party company to make money off of their activities in exchange for the convenience of a service like Street View, Facebook, or twitter. The concern then becomes exactly how that data is used and what happens when people decide they don’t want to be a part of it anymore. This is where I think we need some outside boundaries to curb the “corporate enthusiasm” to exploit people however and whenever they can.
Even with this objection, however, it seems that the “opt-out” model is the best way to resolve people’s concerns with Street View. “Opting In” would require that Google associate every house with an individual in order to get permission, or perhaps ask you if you wanted to opt-in when you created a Google account. That method actually helps them build a library not only of locations, but of the people associated with those locations. Far better, IMO, to associate yourself with an address in Google’s database only when you are asking for your data to be removed.
What I take objection to is the idea that somehow, the outside of people’s houses is something private. Like I said before, if you can see it with your eyes walking down a public street, it’s fair game to photograph. My university has arial photographs of the campus – but they also include some of the surrounding residential areas. The photos are part of the decor of a building that adds to the campus and ultimately allows them to bring in money from students. Should they have to seek out and find the owners of each of those houses? To me that seems more invasive than waiting for somebody to object, and taking specific action at their request. Perhaps the solution is to have a disinterested third party take the Street View pictures instead of Google itself, much like the satellite imagery used in its and other online map applications? We could have a nonprofit cartographic organization that “maps the world” and that data would be available for anybody to use.
I guess what it comes down to is that I am willing to give companies some leeway to make money in exchange for my usage of a service, so long as I have control over how and to what extent that data is used. Deciding on these kinds of limitations and the principles of data ethics are going to be the challenges of the next few years – especially once the brouhaha over copyrights and patents dies down.
At any rate, I am still trying to refine my views on these issues and I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this with me. As I’ve said before, I have a huge amount of respect for you and what you do – thanks for asking the tough questions!
June 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“Reading this post, it seems like you would not be opposed to the exact same service as Street View if it was being provided by a nonprofit organization.”
That’s something of a red herring. But be that as it may, no nonprofit could ever come up with the cash or resources to even nearly take something of this scale this on. But if it was somehow possible, sure I’d be cool with it – as long as they asked me first, and as long as they were doing it to promote something to benefit people instead of taking advantage of them.
To belabour my point, I really resent Google using my house to promote itself without first asking my permission. It’s Google Maps Street View. Google.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s an 800-lb advertising gorilla so it can pretty much do what it wants. But I don’t have to like it and I think it’s significant that after my first post, p2pnet — a tiny site I wouldn’t have thought would even be noticed by Google – had an email from a company PR lady [ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/23469 ]. So we surfers now have a voice even Google has to pay attention to.
In Canada, “Firms engaged in this kind of activity, ‘have to let citizens know that they are going to be photographing the streets of their city, when this will happen, why and how they can have their image removed if they don’t want it in a database,’ says the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, releasing Captured on Camera [ http://www.privcom.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_39_prov_e.asp ] [ http://www.privcom.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_39_prov_e.cfm ] to help Canadians understand privacy issues surrounding street-level imaging applications such as Google StreetView and a similar product offered by Canpages.
“Under Canadian privacy law you should know when your picture is being taken for commercial reasons, and what your image will be used for,” says the commissioner’s office.
That says it all. Again. And even if Google was able sweet-talk the commissioner into qualifying her statements (to its advantange, of course) I’d still continue on this track.
Cheers!
June 24th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Jon,
Just the fact that you have to keep reminding SteelWolf and others what your actual objection is (the way this is all being done without rightful informed consent), in itself, highlights a problem.
There seems to be a distortion of logic taking place in the minds of some…
Most of the people arguing against the main objection (see first line!), clearly don’t understand the premise of informed consent, and clearly WANT to see the Street View “service” able to map out the entire world from ground level. I would guess the reason they want it so bad is they’re struck with the “futuristic feel” of such an idea and “just want to see it happen”.
Just the fact that they object to the suggestion of using an OPT-IN philosophy demonstrates that, for them, it’s “all or nothing” on this. I would implore anyone to explain what actual benefit(s) they think Street View would provide that would justify everyone’s “forced” acceptance of it.
Ironically, instead of everyone challenging Google for ignoring a basic natural right we’re supposed to have in the first place, we’re seeing people challenging others for defending that right! You can argue with these people until you’re blue in the face, the fact remains, until they start to feel their sense of privacy may be directly violated by this kind of activity, they’re just going to keep calling you a “conspiracy nut”.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Hey DA:
It’s really simple. No one, nowhere. nohow, should be automatically included in anything from Google, or anyone else, unless they’ve first given their permission.
Cheers!
June 25th, 2009 at 12:42 am
I guess what I don’t understand is why informed consent is necessary in this particular case, at all. As you said above, your objection has nothing to do with the use of the images as a commercial venture: But if it was somehow possible [for a nonprofit to provide a service like Street View], sure I’d be cool with it – as long as they asked me first….
I don’t have to ask your permission to look at your house from the road, or to write a description of your house from memory on a website. What if I drew a picture of the street by hand? What is the difference between that and taking a picture? From what you posted above, your Privacy Commissioner said people have to get permission for commercial ventures, and as I said in my previous comment, I think that’s a valid concern. However, you said above that you would have a problem with anybody using an image of your house, for any reason (profit or non), provided you didn’t explicitly allow them to do so. In probably every other situation, this makes perfect sense. In this one particular case, though, we’re talking about something that anybody could see on their own without your permission in lieu of the internet. It seems to me like the exterior facade of a building carries no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Contrary to what DA says, I do understand informed consent and I’m not trying to blithely sign away my life to Google because I think it’s “futuristic.” Neither do I think Jon is a “conspiracy nut.” I am simply failing to see why many have decided that something freely visible to all at will, without any consent whatsoever, is private, requiring permission to be seen. How does the ability to prevent people from looking at your house fall under natural rights?
When somebody is born in the US, they are assigned a Social Security Number, essentially “automatically including” them in the system without anybody’s permission. Is that an invasion of privacy? What about credit rating agencies? Is it wrong that they are allowed to automatically include your transactions in their system (and give that information to pretty much anybody who asks)? Maybe I am horribly misguided in thinking this, but it seems to me that when you construct a building, you understand that people will look at it. If we want to prevent that, we plant hedges, put up fences, or buy large plots of land. What’s different is that the internet has allowed the “looking” to occur on a global, rather than local scale. Does that change things, or is this simply a byproduct of the smaller digitally connected world?
Again, I’m sincerely not trying to be ignorant; I’m trying to understand by asking questions.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:25 am
“That’s something of a red herring. But be that as it may, no nonprofit could ever come up with the cash or resources to even nearly take something of this scale this on. But if it was somehow possible, sure I’d be cool with it – as long as they asked me first, and as long as they were doing it to promote something to benefit people instead of taking advantage of them.
”
“Just the fact that they object to the suggestion of using an OPT-IN philosophy demonstrates that, for them, it’s “all or nothing” on this.”
Jon & DA, since you and others keep stressing that Google’s Street View should be opt-in, let me ask you this; How would such a system work? I don’t mean “You give permission, your house is included, you don’t, it isn’t”, I’m talking about the logistics of creating Street View as a strictly opt-in project. It’s one thing to say that “they should do this…”, but it’s another thing to actually come up with a realistic plan for how it should be done. Specifically, I’d like you to answer the following questions;
1. How should Google ask each person for permission? In other words, should the camera mobiles pull over in front of each house, the driver get out, walk up and ring the bell, then take 5-10 minutes explaining what they’re doing and ask for permission to photograph that person’s house? How would this be practical, considering that an average residential street could take upwards of 3 hours to do. This would work out to maybe 3 streets per day for each driver
2. How should they handle the houses where nobody answers the door? Should they come back multiple times during the day to see if anyone is home yet? Should they come back on multiple days? If so, how many times should this be done? After all, some people could be on vacation. Or should they leave a note on the door explaining the project and asking them to contact Google to give their permission?
3. If you said they should leave a note, what methods should they provide for contacting Google? Using email or the web is the most obvious answer, but not everyone owns a computer. Should they provide an 800 number to call? If so, how many lines should they have? Should they provide a snail-mail address? If so, should they also provide postage-paid mailers to avoid people simply not responding because they don’t want to waste a stamp?
4. Considering the natural human tendancy to just ignore things that don’t directly affect them, how should they handle the people who would have no objection to having a photo of their house on the net, but who just can’t be bothered to take the time to respond to the note that Google leaves? How should they handle the people who want to give their permission, but who simply forget? Or the people who mistakenly throw out the note thinking it’s junk mail (your opinion aside)? Should Google send then a registered letter? Should they send someone back to knock on the door again and/or leave another note? If so, how many times should this be done before it becomes intrusive in your opinion?
5. Additionally, how should they verify the identity of each person who contacts them? Without some way to identify people, anyone could claim to be someone else and get that person’s house removed from Street View, even if they’ve given permission. The other person would then have to contact Google to get their house photo re-added. Again, how would they verify their identity so that someone else couldn’t just claim to be them and get the photo added. Does each note left at a house have a unique ID number that is recorded by the driver? Even so, how do you ensure that someone else didn’t just go up and read the note, or take it?
6. How should the houses where Google hasn’t yet obtained permission to photograph be handled? Somehow I doubt you’d be ok with them photographing it and then holding onto the photos until they get a person’s permission to use it. After all, it could be days or even weeks before they hear from the homeowner. So, assuming that they don’t photograph a given house, what do they do if that person later gives their permission? Do they send the camera mobile back to photograph just that one house?
7. If you said that they shouldn’t photograph a house until they have permission, how should they avoid photographing that particular house while photographing a neighboring house that they do have permission for? Keep in mind that they create 360 degree panoramic views, not just a single photo. Should each car be fitted with some device that can be used to selectively block a portion of the view, either through software or by a physical cover that is fitted to the camera? Should the cars have technology that would allow them to edit the photos on the spot to remove other houses from the photos? Or is it permissable for them to photograph a house that they don’t have permission to photograph as long as it’s Google policy that the offending house will be removed from the photos as soon as the images are processed by Google? Assuming that they do somehow block the offending house, or delete the house from the photos, what do they do if that person later gives their permission? Do they go back and not only photograph that house, but also re-photograph the neighboring house as well so that it will now include the previously offending house? Or do they use Photoshop to try and paste the new house into the old photos?
8. How would they avoid abuse where a person keeps changing their position simply to mess with them? It’s not like wasting someone’s time is against the law, so what’s to stop someone from giving permission, withdrawing it later, waiting a month, then giving permission again, etc. Does Google send the camera mobile out every time that person says they changed their mind? What if the person claims to be indecisive and acting on the advice of others? What if they really ARE indecisive? How many times should Google allow them to change their mind before permanently excluding them?
Final two questions;
9. Once you’ve dealt with all of the above issues, would it still be economically viable to do?
10. Once you take into consideration how many people would refuse permission simply on principle, and the people who would refuse out of paranoia, and the people who simply wouldn’t bother to contact Google to give permission, and the people who would forget to contact Google to give permission, and the people who would throw the note away without even reading it, what is your realistic opinion on the practicality of creating Street View as a purely opt-in project?
I’m not trolling, I’d actually like you to provide serious answers to the above questions.
“I would implore anyone to explain what actual benefit(s) they think Street View would provide that would justify everyone’s “forced” acceptance of it.”
It’s a convenience feature, like many other things. Is it necessary? No, it isn’t. Then again, neither are phones or cell phones that dial any number other than 911/Emergency services. I mean, can you think of any use for a phone that couldn’t be accomplished by simply going over and talking to the person directly, or by sending a letter? Sure, it’s not as convenient, but other than in emergencies, when do you actually NEED to talk to someone instantly? Not to mention that cell phones are a public nuisance when they ring in the middle of a conversation, or while you’re in a theater (other people’s I mean). Yet, we’re all “forced” to accept this annoyance. I know a woman whose cell phone rings every 5 minutes or so. Sometimes I just want to grab it and smash it on the ground while screaming “Can you hear me now???” Why didn’t the cell phone companies get everyone’s permission before forcing the public to accept such an annoying invention? The world survived just fine without cell phones, why do we need them now?
June 25th, 2009 at 1:49 am
First you say:
“Contrary to what DA says, I do understand informed consent…”
Then you say:
“I am simply failing to see why many have decided that something freely visible to all at will, without any consent whatsoever, is private, requiring permission to be seen. How does the ability to prevent people from looking at your house fall under natural rights?”
The second statement simply illustrates you (and a few others who keep repeating the same idea) don’t fully understand informed consent. Since you’re having trouble seeing it from the perspective of “property”, let’s try looking at it from a slightly different angle…
Scenario:
Someone you don’t know and haven’t talked to is taking pictures of you on public street.
You’re something that is “freely visible” to the naked eye, and don’t “require permission” to LOOK at.
Possible Questions:
1) Would you not want to know why?
2) Would you not prefer you were asked first?
3) If you weren’t asked first, would “1 or 2″ snaps be okay, before you decided you should know what it’s about?
4) If you weren’t asked, would you not demand the pictures be deleted?
5) If the photographer was wearing a sign telling you why he was taking pictures, would that be sufficient reason for you not to want to be asked first? Would it also be sufficient reason not to ask what is being done with the stored images?
Epilog:
It is currently illegal in Canada and the US to arbitrarily capture people in photos or videos without getting their informed consent.
Legal Definition:
Informed Consent – Consent given with full knowledge of the risks involved, probable consequences, and the alternatives.
There’s lots of material on this, freely available from a Google search.
These laws are not limited to live subjects, but also their propery and life activities. The sum of these parts make up a person’s life, and privacy laws were built around that. For some reason, people just seem to grasp the concept much more easily when it’s applied to themselves.
Ironically, Google is currently displaying a few books (with its new book service) that each explain why Street View is not completely “above board”.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:09 am
@ the Readers Write with all the questions…
You’ve asked 10 questions.
All of these questions are based on the assumption that WE should be offering the solutions for the problems caused by Google Street View not being applied to the letter of the law.
Therefore, my answer to ALL questions is the following…
THAT’S GOOGLE’S PROBLEM!
It is not incumbent on any of us to figure out how Google can iron this out.
We weren’t the ones who proposed the idea, or launched it without addressing the issue of informed consent.
As to the last point, you didn’t really answer the question you quoted from me, that being, to explain what actual benefit Street View would provide that would justify everyone’s “forced” acceptance of it.” All you did was go on about one of the common “destructive” qualities of public cellphone use – its annoyance factor – which, personally, I think IS another form of “forced acceptance”.
I will argue that a communications device, no matter how annoying it may be, still offers marked benefits, while Street View merely offers a virtually worthless “gimmick”.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:55 am
@DA: 1, 2, and 3 fall into “courtesy,” not “right.” If you are in a public location, you have no reasonable expectation that anybody around you with a camera will not be taking your picture, nor must they ask. This happens to celebrities all the time. If you go somewhere public, people can and will take your picture. If they’re doing it in your house, you have a problem. But on the public street? Sorry. People with photographic memory will see you, and people with cameras can photograph you.
4. No. Not at all. How would these “demands” be any different than the recording industry “demanding” that music be taken off of people’s personal websites because they did not give consent for it to be there? If you can have photographs removed, how about commentary? Should I be able to order derogatory text offline because it features myself, my property, or my life activities?
5. Yes. The sign explains why it’s being done.
Epilogue: In the articles Jon has posted that I have been reading, he has made specific mention of it being illegal in Canada to take pictures of somebody for commercial reasons – not any reason. If that law does exist in Canada, Google is using its weight to get away with breaking it and they are clearly in the wrong. However, your post is the first I have heard that, in Canada, it is always illegal to capture people with recording devices. I hope the CCTV operators in banks, malls, and department stores know of this so they can immediately disconnect their equipment.
As I have been saying, I think it is unreasonable to demand any measure of privacy for anything that is visible by people with eyes – and only in this case. I could follow you around, DA, seeing you with my eyes and sketching you, and post those sketches on my website. You might like to know why, but there is no need for me to ask you – certainly if my website is not a for-profit enterprise. There might be a problem if I tagged each sketch with coordinates, or the times I saw you. At a graduation, parents taking pictures of their child also take pictures of the surrounding graduates – without their consent in any form. They might even post those pictures online, share the link with family and friends, or print out and frame the image. Do you have a right to ban photography during the graduation until each student has given consent for each other parent to photograph them? How about the recent anniversary of Tienanmen Square? Was the Chinese government justified in blocking photography of the site because it was their national property?
In every single other case I would likely agree with you. But I don’t think that the exterior you choose to show to the world is private in any way. If you don’t want people to look at your house, build it in the woods. If you don’t want people to look at you, stay inside. As soon as anything of yours is visible from public areas, anybody who wishes to can see it. In this age of connectivity, that means the whole world.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:58 am
“1. How should Google ask each person for permission?”
If they have the financial and personnel resources to undertake the Snoop-O-Rama exercise in the first place, they also have the same resources to advertise in national print and electronic media (and maybe drop off leaflets) about the plan, telling people how to opt in in much the same way they’re now telling them they can op out (after people around the world have been making a fuss).
It’s a brilliant marketing idea worthy of Steve Jobs, and it’s garnered immense free press for Google, and continues to do so. But it’s just another Google promo / advertising hook.
And if the above comment wasn’t so well articulated and so obviously written by a curious, but deeply sincere, reader, I’d be wondering if s/he wasn’t another of Google’s multitudinous PR hacks.
Cheers!
June 25th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I feel like I am constantly being “opted in” to things that I am not given an adequate degree of consent about. EULAs, “security” cameras, Social Security Numbers, payroll deductions, speed cameras, baggage inspections, “quality assurance” call monitoring… Frequently, if you are given the choice to “opt out,” you get no service at all. Are all of these things out of bounds? And if you do take the position that nothing should ever be done without explicit informed consent, I think asking how such a system would work is a fair question.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:15 am
@Jon – I can certainly agree with you on that point. With the amount of visibility Google has, they could get people opting in solely through a press release or their search homepage, and they certainly have the money to use traditional means as well. But Google is a commercial enterprise. Should this level of control be given in every case, and to what extent? If I take a picture of myself at a historic site and people walk behind me, do I have to run after them to get their consent before I post the picture of myself online? Or is it just if I took a picture of them specifically to put on my own site?
Also, out of curiosity, if Google did do as you said and asked the world to opt-in, would you consent? Why or why not?
June 25th, 2009 at 8:52 am
@ SteelWolf
Enuff, already
p2pnet has given Google enough time and space. 
Cheers!
June 25th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
“Scenario:
Someone you don’t know and haven’t talked to is taking pictures of you on public street.
You’re something that is “freely visible” to the naked eye, and don’t “require permission” to LOOK at.
Possible Questions:
1) Would you not want to know why?
2) Would you not prefer you were asked first?
3) If you weren’t asked first, would “1 or 2″ snaps be okay, before you decided you should know what it’s about?
4) If you weren’t asked, would you not demand the pictures be deleted?
5) If the photographer was wearing a sign telling you why he was taking pictures, would that be sufficient reason for you not to want to be asked first? Would it also be sufficient reason not to ask what is being done with the stored images?”
It depends, is the photographer singling me out and only taking pictures of me, or are they taking pictures of everyone? If they’re only taking pictures of me, I’d probably want to know why, simply because I’m not especially photogenic and they might be up to no good. On the other hand, if they were taking pictures of everyone, I wouldn’t worry about it. If I later found out that they were using those pictures in an embarassing way, such as making up humiliating captions and putting them on the net, I might object. If they were simply using them in street scenes, I can’t see why it would bother me.
However, Google isn’t singling anyone in particular out, nor are they using the photos in an embarassing manner (photo of the guy dumb enough to walk around naked with the curtains open, notwithstanding).
“You’ve asked 10 questions.
All of these questions are based on the assumption that WE should be offering the solutions for the problems caused by Google Street View not being applied to the letter of the law.
Therefore, my answer to ALL questions is the following…
THAT’S GOOGLE’S PROBLEM!
It is not incumbent on any of us to figure out how Google can iron this out.”
Maybe not, but you’re the one saying how making the project opt-in would fix everything, yet you ignore the reality that making it opt-in would basically kill it. Between the logistics of getting everyone’s permission to dealing with those who don’t give permission, the costs of going back to re-photograph homes when the owner later gives consent and everything else making it opt-in would entail, what you’re really asking for is that Google kill the project and delete it from their site. Because that would be the outcome of having to get permission from everyone. Otherwise, it would end up looking like the pic at the top of this article and that wouldn’t be of use to anyone.
“As to the last point, you didn’t really answer the question you quoted from me, that being, to explain what actual benefit Street View would provide that would justify everyone’s “forced” acceptance of it.”
I see it as a logical extension of maps. You need to go some place you’ve never been, so you look it up on a map. However, I’ve never seen a printed map that includes street numbers, or that would automatically show you the route from point A to point B. For that you need to use an online map, such as Google, or Yahoo. Even with the map and directions, you still have no idea what the area looks like. Most maps only show major features such as parks or universities. They don’t show you if an area is wooded, or residential, or commercial.
How many times have you needed to go to a particular address, such as a small store, and ended up wondering where the left turn onto Elm Drive is? Or you find yourself driving back and forth looking for 3016 and wondering why the numbers jump from 2088 to 3020. Then after your fourth trip through the same stretch of road, you spot the tiny little sign and the brick building you were told to look for, situated back behind a strip mall? Wouldn’t it be nice to scout out the area from the comfort of your home, before playing “spot the number”, followed by a round of “where the f*** is this place???”?
“If they have the financial and personnel resources to undertake the Snoop-O-Rama exercise in the first place, they also have the same resources to advertise in national print and electronic media (and maybe drop off leaflets) about the plan, telling people how to opt in in much the same way they’re now telling them they can op out (after people around the world have been making a fuss).”
Ok, that covers points 1 & 2. The rest of the questions are still valid. People tend to be lazy and not do things unless there’s something in it for them. I know people who have no objection at all to Street View, but who wouldn’t spend even one minute of their time to go to the web site or pick up the phone and give their permission. Why? They just can’t be bothered. So Street View would end up looking like my blacked out example pic, not because most people would actually object to photos of their house being on the net, but because they simply can’t be bothered to take the effort to consent. There’s also the question of how to handle homes where you don’t yet have consent. It would be costly and impractical to keep sending the cars out to re-photograph the same street, not to mention that the view would no longer be a smooth 360 view if they have to patch together photos taken on different days. The most practical solution would be to keep the photos in their archives and put blacked out ones online, so that in case they later get permission, they can substitute the originals, however I suspect that you’d object to photos of your home being in Google’s archives.
“And if the above comment wasn’t so well articulated and so obviously written by a curious, but deeply sincere, reader, I’d be wondering if s/he wasn’t another of Google’s multitudinous PR hacks.”
Nope, I’m just a normal person who doesn’t see this as anything to get worked up over. People like DA ask “Why do we need this”. My father had the same attitude toward computers. He only saw them as good if he had a specific use for them, like having me type a letter for him, otherwise he saw them as a waste of time. Not only as far as recreation, but as part of daily life as well. He’d come home angry that the computer at work had been offline and they couldn’t get anything done, or that the people he had to deal with were busy using a computer rather than paying attention to him. If he’d had his way, we’d have still been living in the 70s.
Every year during the summer, there’s an “Oyster Fetsival” in the center of town. It’s not exactly huge, but the local papers cover it just the same. They always include at least a few photos, which show people walking around in the background, then they put those photos in their paper, which they sell for a profit. I could be wrong, but I doubt that they get the permission of everyone who appears in the background of these photos. News programs often do location reports that have the reporter standing on the street as people walk by. They don’t stop each person and get their permission before putting this footage on the air, even though they profit from it.
I admit that part of me just thinks “Wow, this is really cool!”, but I also don’t see the harm in it either. If they were installing cameras to provide a real-time, 24/7 viw of my home, I’d probably object, but a one-time photo (updated periodically) I have no problem with.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
‘Shill,’ possibly derived from the Yiddish word ’shillaber,’ a carnival worker who, “pretends to be a member of the audience in an attempt to elicit interest in an attraction”.
~ The Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
June 25th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Hmm, how to prove that I’m not a “shill”?
Well, for starters, I think they’ve got some real idiots working on their search routines. Whoever came up with that “These terms only appear in pages linking to this one: … ” crap deserves to have their fingers broken. If I wanted to find pages that DIDN’T contain the words I searched for, I wouldn’t have included them! It might be semi-helpful if they had included a way to actually GO to the pages that link to that one and which DO contain the terms you searched for, but they don’t. There’s also no option on the advanced search page to filter out these non-results.
I also hate what they did to “Google Groups”. They bought the DejaNews archive of Usenet posts, which admittedly did keep it online, then they scrapped the DN interface and put their own on it. Unfortunately, they used a copy of the web search interface. When they did this, they asked for feedback and suggestions. I sent them a nice, polite message describing all the reasons that Usenet posts shouldn’t be treated like web sites. I further suggested that they look at the DN interface and implement all those options, as well as the way the results are formatted. Not only did they never implement a single major change to that “temporary” search interface, they’ve continued to twist and convolute the groups search to the point where it’s now virtually useless. Trying to search newsgroups returns web matches as well. It hides “similar” posts, which means you usually see a couple replies, but not the original message, the date sort seems to be approximate as parts of stories are spread out across multiple pages, you can’t see anyone’s full email adress (which is usually fake anyway) and you can’t even view all the posts in a thread on one page. Whoever is in charge of “Google Groups” should be horsewhipped.
Then there’s the fact that you can’t actually contact a live person anymore. All “support” is handled through “groups” which has the most confusing interface and layout I’ve ever seen.
Or that their “prefs” cookie contains a unique identifier and virtually never expires, which is why I no longer allow cookies from Google to remain on my system.
On the other hand, Google Maps seems to give better directions than Yahoo and Google’s tranlation page supports more languages and generally does a better job at translating pages than Yahoo’s Babelfish (originally by AltaVista).
Some things they do better than others.
How do you know I’m the same person? Here’s an non-blacked out view of the same street. Sorry, it’s not the actual original source photo, but I didn’t save it and it seems to be impossible to get exactly the same image from Street View a second time;
http://i44.tinypic.com/14cqtrt.jpg