Street View is just a part of the same parcel. IMO, nothing Google does is separate from other elements.

Cheers!

I do think that Google has made mistakes in this project, but I think the spirit of the project is fine – an opinion that seems to run contrary to that of many sites I nearly always agree with. Personally, I am much more concerned about projects like Google Health and Google’s Chrome browser/user tracking tool.

heh. Good one.

Cheers!

Here’s what Street View would look like if they were required to get everyone’s consent before using publically taken photos;

http://i39.tinypic.com/2m4yvq9.jpg

-Think of the furniture you could look at instead of waking to a store!
-Think of the bed-spread colors against different walls colors you could look at
-Think of how you could check if more people are hardwood floors or carpeting

All for FREE*!

What if the donor only gave the goods on condition of you relieving yourself of some privacy?

What if this “free” product (ie. donation) is something many don’t want or care to have?

What if this “free” product (which I’m sure will be of value to business end-users of google-real-estate) is generating $ at the loss of your privacy?

What if this “free” donation is something people who don’t care for computers want?

What if this “free” virtual donation is something people who don’t care for computers, or don’t have a computer, don’t even know what it’s about?

Is it ok to just take w/o everyone knowing?

Sure are a lot of things hidden behind “free”.

Your comment suggests this is a primary focus. It isn’t. It just happens to be an example of Google taking yet another liberty.

I’m not saying it should be barred from foisting Street View. But I am saying no one should have been Opted In without their express consent. And I’ll keep on saying it. And the same thing should apply to everything Google does.

Cheers!

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. 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.

This doesn’t excuse other behavior, like GooMobiles driving down clearly marked private drives, but I think the core idea is sound. 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.

In Canada [where I live] we don’t have “ten thousand government camera’s on most streets already,” although I’m quite sure various entities would dearly love to change that.

Anyhow, have a look here http://www.p2pnet.net/story/23545

Cheers!