Gargle Street View chicken pic
p2pnet news view | Advertising:- p2pnet is no great admirer of Gargle’s Street View ad hook. But that doesn’t mean to say it (Street View, that is) doesn’t have its moments.
“This kids is ready to attack the Google Street View car with his new shovel: http://tinyurl.com/nwg2f6 #streetview,” says the streetviewfunny Twitter page.
And of the second pic, “Google captures a family and their pet chicken – http://bit.ly/TAoqo #streetview“.
In accordance with strict Gargoyle privacy policies, the faces are blurred so there’s absolutely no way anyone would ever be able to identify the featured individuals, even though the street address is in plain sight and the surrounds are easily recognizable.
We excluded the addresses in our own effort to protect the innocent, but we can say the scenes are from Spain.
(http://streetviewgallery.corank.com/tech/story/a-present-on-her-shoe isn’t bad either. 
)
Cheers!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 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.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
They forgot to blank out the baby’s face.
July 4th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“In accordance with strict Gargoyle privacy policies, the faces are blurred so there’s absolutely no way anyone would ever be able to identify the featured individuals, even though the street address is in plain sight and the surrounds are easily recognizable.”
Because sitting in a public place is considered a private activity?
I have another serious question for you, two actually;
When you’ve gone on vacation and visited some tourist attraction, have you ever taken a photo that inadvertantly included other people in the background?
If so, did you make sure to get the permission of each and every person that you might have accidentally includes in your photos?
Frankly, I can’t understand this warped idea that it’s perfectly fine to be seen in public, but if someone takes a photo that happens to include you, or your house, or your car, without your permission, it’s some great crime against humanity.
July 4th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“…I can’t understand this warped idea that it’s perfectly fine to be seen in public, but if someone takes a photo that happens to include you, or your house, or your car, without your permission, it’s some great crime against humanity.”
It may not be a crime against humanity, but there are laws that have been around for some time about photographing people without informed consent. People who take pictures for a living are quite familiar with them.
Look it up!
July 4th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
DA, you consistently sidestep the thrust of this argument in every thread: “did you make sure to get the permission of each and every person that you might have accidentally includes in your photos?”
Most likely you did not, nor should you have to. Public places are public.
July 4th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
^^ “you might have accidentally includes in your photos”
There’s nothing accidental about Gargle Snoop-O-Ramas.
Cheers!
July 5th, 2009 at 2:27 am
“DA, you consistently sidestep the thrust of this argument in every thread…”
I’ve simply been repeating that there are laws about acquiring informed consent when capturing images of people and things. Replying with the same, inaccurate and simplistic “public places are public – end of story” statement is actually side-stepping.
You either look up the laws for yourself, or just keep believing in some smaller, incomplete picture you think I’m avoiding… whichever option makes it easier for you to get through your day.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Thanks for deleting my message pointing out how getting the permission of each and every person who might appear in a photo taken in public would be impossible and how this sort of thing happens all the time with news broadcasts. After spending a good 10-15 minutes editing it, I didn’t really want anyone to read it…
July 6th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Hi: Please post it again, if you still have a copy.
Cheers!
July 6th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“Thanks for deleting my message pointing out how getting the permission of each and every person who might appear in a photo taken in public would be impossible and how this sort of thing happens all the time with news broadcasts…”
In other words, someone spent 10-15 minutes trying to make the same insignificant point that was already made ad nauseum, instead of just looking for themselves to find out there really IS a law about this?
: )
July 6th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
(Talk about clue-resistant!)