Google Street View scares the shit out of me
 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...,0.014291&z=16

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...7088755534 ,0
(Zoom in on the couple on the bench.)

The same goes, of course, for the windows of your bedroom, for your backyard, etc.

That shouldn't be freaking you out, what should be freaking you out is that google will be permanently storing everything it records and making it available to the government and any businesses willing to pay.

Why would it freak you out?

All of the images that I've seen so far were made using a vehicle driving down the street. You'd have to be doing something you'd be worried about someone seeing at the instant the vehicle came by and secondly, it's not capturing anything that someone walking down the street wouldn't be able to see and take a picture of with a camera anyways.

If you don't jerk off on the street corner or in front of a window with the blinds open - I don't see a problem.

lol thats just the shit they're showin us tho..

I'm sure they got a lot more capabilities than that gay lil car drivin around lol

Whoaa too cool!

Their link to download the latest flash player doesnt work :P

it's not real time, is it?

they images could have been taken months ago.

It's not like it's live. It's a one time snapshot.

big brother is always watching

Honestly, I don't see anything more than that happening - at least not by Google. To capture live data for all of the maps they're setting up would require millions of cameras and billions of dollars.

Sure, they have the money, but I'm pretty sure mainstream media would notice and pitch a holy fit if anyone were out installing cameras to record live data and a satellite can't provide live data either.

Just be on the lookout for that gay little truck and you (and everyone else) will be just fine.

well, for some of us, that IS a problem.

anyone have a pic of the truck so we know what to watch out for? :1orglaugh

Wouldn't surprise me if that's the typical American response.

Sad that we continue to give up our privacy and liberties so easily.

you're right. in fact, we should go backwards. we would all be much better off without technology and if we all just retreated to the mountains and started trap lines.

i long for the day when we all are nothing but simple people, trapping beavers to trade those pelts with natives for nice little leather trinkets

Take a virtual drive around and zoom in on people's homes, backyards, etc. On one pic, I could actually make out the brand of the television in the back of the bedroom on the second story. If you're a burglar, this little tool is perfect... relatively very high quality pictures of thousands of streets without ever having to do any scouting for yourself. Potential employer wants to check if your house looks good enough for his tastes? Ten seconds of searching.

Now add to that the fact that Google is also working on facial recognition software. It stores everything it ever records, and I suspect it could link all its different data quite easily. Which means your myspace profile gets linked to your blog gets linked to your message board posts gets linked to your dating site profile gets linked to random sightings of you on the street, etc.

Googling someone already gives a rather large amount of information. Soon, the average person will be able to find out just about everything possible about you with a few simple searches. Governments and corporations, meanwhile, will be able to get even more information without any of the efforts usually associated with it, making it possible for them to know almost everything about almost everyone in the blink of an eye.

Burglars with computers don't go looking for TV's to steal.... they open porn sites!

<sorry, couldn't resist>!!:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

technology, got to love it

I hear what you're saying, but Google isn't doing anything that most don't already do. Most folks link this site to that site already so there aren't any real surprises there. That van can't capture any image that someone walking down the street can't already see - so there's no invasion of privacy issues.

If a potential employer really gives enough of a crap about your house before hiring you, they'd drive to it and look at it - or at least could..

What I do see Google doing is providing the best global positioning satellite service/direction services and putting Rand McNally outta biz and making a nice deal with OnStar for units inside new car purchases to monetize the cost of doing this.

I've been going up and down new york city streets trying to find a glass building so I can see the truck in the reflection. I noticed that San Francisco though has much better picture quality.

the person doing it in Miami is doing it not from a truck there is a white car parked in every picture I assume that is the car they are driving around in

I don't pretend to have any privacy when I'm walking down the street, hence "public".. nor am I going to ask for royalties from google if they caught me in on of their street level photos... lol.. what's the going rate? $1 CPMs?

privacy? its a public street for christ sake. whats the difference between them putting a picture online and some guy walking down the street seeing the same thing?

Ehm, I am kinda puzzled by what you're saying about "Google [not] doing anything that most don't already do". Because, in fact, they are. They record the search histories, ad clicks and email traffic of millions of people, and have indexed billions of webpages. They have by far the most information on consumers any company has ever had, and you can be sure that they are using it to maximize revenue ("relevance") in any way they can.
Now, that concentration of information by itself is already quite frightening. If any government comes to power that actively tries to silence dissent (and I'm not talking about the Bush administration or anything like it here), the dangers are both obvious and overwhelming.

Now, aside from that, the point I mentioned about potential employers actually does matter quite a bit. Someone who is only barely computer literate can find out overwhelming amounts of information on almost anyone in next to no time at all. An employer who wouldn't take the 30 minutes to check out where you live in person might very well choose to spend the 1 minute it costs to do it online. In 10 or 15 minutes, that same employer has a pretty good chance of finding out your sexual preferences, political beliefs, previous and current partners, drunken midnight rants, etc.

The information that is online is usually not an invasion of privacy because of the specific bits it consists of, but because of its overwhelming range. The work that previously would have taken a stalker months on end can now be done by anyone with a slight interest in you in a matter of minutes.

big brother is watching

They that sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety.

The difference is that it's a matter of record.

Say someone's trying to hide his smoking habit from his family... or a woman's involved in a relationship with a man that she doesn't want her father to know about... or someone's seen entering a church that he'd rather keep private... or a politician is caught entering an adult bookstore.

Or, say, what if that guy in the second photo up top is married to another woman?

...or whatever issue someone might have. Even in public, there's still a certain assumption that what you're doing is not going to be broadcasted for the world to see in the form of a semi-permanant and widely accessible record

Sure, what google's doing is not technically illegal... but it is irresponsible, imho.

Consent forms should be obtained, or facial obfuscation technology should be employed liberally.

IMHO, that should be the cost of doing business in America... or anywhere, for that matter.

I think it's pretty sweet yo.

Interesting debate! Dunno whether it is good or bad? Necessity or evil or both? Lo! Just like Friction!

Where's Waldo?

Good post.

What works well for me is the "granny argument": there are tons of things I do and say that I will happily share with the rest of the world. However, I do not particularly want my grandmother to know about them. I might make out in public with a woman without particularly caring what the passers-by think. However, I do not want my granny to be watching. I might post happily about the conversions of a new extreme bukkake site, and I am not ashamed of that in any way. However, I still don't want my damn granny to read about it. ("Honey, what does bukkake mean?" - yegh)

What Google is doing is, in a way, working towards a world where, whatever you do, you have to keep in mind that both your granny and your future grandchildren will be able to read all about it.

The meaning of "in public" has basically changed.

This is a great debate - kudos to all involved!

I don't see the meaning of "in public" changing. I don't think anyone in a public area has any right to expect privacy - that's why they made doors and gave those doors hinges.

I think that perhaps this would be a whole 'nother can of worms if we were talking about live streaming video but we're not. This is simply a car passing by taking a picture and driving off and the line between "chances are" and "worst case scenario" is kind of blurry.

This is not a case of "Big Brother" watching.

"Big Brother" implies a legal or governmental agency - and Google certainly doesn't fit into that category.

"Watching" implies a sustained focus of attention - and taking a picture of everything without a focus of a target and for only a brief moment disqualifies this word as an appropriate description of what is happening.

Worst case scenario, I'd say it's "Distant Relative Trying To Make A Buck" as a better description.

Damn, that's just amazing!!

Check this

And this

I just hope the computer at the grocery store doesn't try to upsell me K-Y Jelly just because I run some porn sites :)

I actually think the meaning of "in public" has already changed quite a bit. A statement intended for a small group of people these days has the potential to have the same reach as a deliberately broadly publicised message.

When you post on a small message board, it is not with the same intentions as when you write an article for a newspaper, or deliver a speech on television. Yet, in effect, the reach can actually be much larger, even though the intended audience was much smaller.

Likewise, look at pictures. In past times, pictures taken in bars, clubs or on the street were seen by quite a few people, but they were extremely unlikely to get published worldwide. These days, whenever someone takes a picture, it is likely to be published in such a way that everyone, anywhere can see it.


As for Big Brother watching us... the Big Brother that's watching us in Europe is CCTV. Google, on the other hand, is the big brother that's merely logging our search terms, website visits, ad clicks, etc.

I've seen that truck

I bet terrorist love it.

They can scout out any area without even comming into the states.

They can find all the security points and count how many personnel are on site too.