If You're Going To Complain About Street View Invading Your Privacy, You Might Want To Check Out What Your Government Is Doing
from the we-showed-them! dept
The British government appears to be on a track to undermine its citizens' privacy by collecting more and more information about their online behavior, but some villagers there recently took a stand against a far more evil menace: Google Street View. As one of the Street View vehicles turned down a street in the village of Broughton, a guy took exception, riled up his neighbors and they mobbed the vehicle (via CNet), forcing it into a hasty retreat. While the government goes on forcing ISPs to retain customer data like email, Street View seems to be attracting much more public ire. The main rabblerouser in this most recent case says he's concerned that Street View is invading his privacy and "facilitating crime" by putting pictures of his and his neighbors' houses online, echoing earlier calls that Google Maps facilitates terrorist attacks. The fact remains that Street View doesn't show a would-be thief anything they couldn't find out by walking or driving down the same road; in fact it seems a little unreasonable to think that any decent criminal would rely solely on reconnaissance from Street View when casing a target. The privacy uproar over Street View in the UK seems a little misplaced when the British government is taking much more invasive, and potentially much more harmful, steps to infringe the privacy of its citizens.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: privacy, street view, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Carlo, your assignment is incomplete. If you are going to raise a point, at least explain it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact, I don't even understand how taking a picture of something in public could be invasive. Unless the photographer was ramming a camera up a woman's skirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*snark*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hloBbe8BNw&feature=related
courtesy of the very funny Jennie Breeden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
everyday posts
flames and buttered toast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Weird Harold the troll
Everyday he makes his posts
Coherent as toast
Might need a little work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: critical thinking or at least reading.
The info is above the ending comment.
Of course you already know that all of the internet goes through a room at the AT&T office in san francisco and is data mined by the US Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Striking back at Google
If the state were to be accountable (never in my lifetime), then Google would not be an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Striking back at Google
Maybe you can explain how taking pictures of things completely in public can be considered either spying or abusive.
A good rule of thumb to follow: if you want to protect your privacy, don't make yourself public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Striking back at Google
Except that is intrusive in itself. Everyone has to make themselves public at times and there are some private things they can't avoid doing in public places.
Also, changes in technology are making public many things that were once unquestionably private. The definition of public is expanding to formerly private forms of communication and to new ones as they come along. Also, public is expanding tremendously in physical area too.
Once upon a time, public was what could be seen by another person with reasonable vision in line of sight or heard by someone with good hearing. Then came optics and later electronics and now satellites and the Internet. Now you can pick your nose on a seemingly deserted street and have it witnessed live by 10,000 people spread all across the globe.
Go ahead and say "don't pick your nose then," but remember the slippery slope. 10 years from now CCD cameras may abound. They could be high resolution, they may record sound, they may support infared viewing or no telling what else, they may be pointing directly at your home, and they may be viewable to the world. Technology may advance to the point that the only private area you have is a specially constructed cage in the center of your home. 10 years from now someone may be on this web site arguing that if you want to protect your privacy you need to upgrade your cage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's important to think about, because while the UK has the highest number of CCTV cams for any country, they also have strict rules about automatically blocking and blurring out windows and "private" areas that might be seen by the cameras. It seems like a ton of money is spent to guard the privacy of it's citizens. It isn't like Google is blurring house windows, is it?
Considering Carlo is an expert (and student, I think), you would think that the examples given would be (a) more relevant and on point, and (b) put in the area of his post that relates them to the accusation made.
As I said, homework incomplete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) The UK intends to create a database of ALL communications of its citizens, including phone and email.
2) The UK has poor data protection, which led to multiple times that private military documents ended up on trains in and in night clubs
3) Nearly 30 percent of UK government databases may be illegal
Are you telling me that its better to let the government have its way? Google isnt the problem here, not be a long shot. Which is why its ludicrous for citizens to be bent out of shape at Google, when their own government does even worse things to their privacy.
Please tell that to your RIAA masters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
screw you.
Harold, you're missing a lot of information, all available on tech dirt.
I'm not missing it, I am aware of it. But if Carlo is going to write an article and make a point of this sort of thing, why wouldn't he link to them so that people can understand the full meaning of the article WITHOUT having to be completely up to date about every post on techdirt? Mike over quotes and over links, and in this case, Carlo missed the boat entirely.
However, it is clear on point: The UK government has been very careful about images that might show private areas, even on CCTV cameras. While they may have other issues, this is one area where they are actually leading the world, not behind.
Personally, I don't have anything to hide from the government, so if they want to keep a log of my phonecalls, they are welcome to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also I find it hard to understand how you can attack Carlos article for not providing enough links, while making comments like
"The UK government has been very careful about images that might show private areas, even on CCTV cameras. While they may have other issues, this is one area where they are actually leading the world, not behind."
without providing any evidence to back up such a claim, because I have never seen any, from what I have read here and on various other sites it seems to be quite the oppistae, note privacy international rate the UK as having an "endemic surveillance society" see http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
WH, blue words? Those are called "links." If you put your mouse over them, you can go to other pages.
Carlo's story is perfectly comprehendable to anyone over the age of 8.
You also know that Carlo is considered one of the most respected analysts on a variety of technology areas? And here you are insulting him when you are some stay at home spam blogger who won't even reveal his real name? What a sad little pathetic life you lead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the Anonymous Coward? I lol'd. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy & Street View
Not only that, but it gets into the legal concept of "expectation of privacy" that is used in other arenas. We don't necessarily have an expectation of privacy in public areas. There's a picture of my house available on the county assessors website. Anyone can drive by and view my house real-time. Is that an invasion of my privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy & Street View
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy Target
I think the big diff betweeen people screaming about Google Street View and not complaining about ISPs or the government storing their emails is... they don't have a clue.
GSV is an easy target because you can go to their website and point at pics of houses as the invasion of privacy. There are even actual cars driving around that you can attack!
There's no easy target or evidence for what the ISP's are doing, so starting a protest about it can make you sound like a paranoid fool, even if you're right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the point
That is a fair sentiment, and I think it would work logically, but only IF you trust your government to have your best interests at heart. As a whole, I just can't do that. My assessment of history just won't allow it. So for me, while I don't have MUCH to hide, certainly nothing spectacularly illegal, that's not where my opposition originates. I'm far more concerned about the innocent things that can be gleamed by my intrusive government as a way to exert further control over me and my fellow citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forget the government
@Anonymous Coward: Sorry, I can't link the to the TV program I saw on the matter a couple of years ago, I think it was ITV, but I can't seem to find it. I am sure some of our UK readers may be able to shed some light on the window blur system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forget the government
(sorry for the run on sentience.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forget the government
However ...
An MLS listing discloses a lot of information about the neighborhood which affects the neighbors. It discloses quite a lot (like the value of the home, inside layout, location of doors/windows/landscaping/etc) that affects not only the current resident, but the subsequent purchaser of the home (who may not have agreed to the revelation of so much detail).
The point isn't whether the information is voluntarily given or not, the point is that these townspeople are getting upset at a level of information (a limited series of images only) that pales in comparison to information that is available through other means.
As far as your point about "entering into a contract willingly", Google isn't seeing anything that anyone else standing on the street could not see. There is no "caught unaware in situations they don't want to be seen in". Someone halfway around the globe won't care that someone is embracing a person other than their spouse in public view. The townspeople might, on the other hand, and they are physically present and able to violate this "privacy in public view" in the form of gossip and whatnot with more dire consequences than someone in Tibet who giggles because you scratched your ass in public.
Honestly, the only problem I see is one of xenophobia: stranger + camera = bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forget the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wanna know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google street view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google street view
You can't just blame the politicians when it is the "people" who put them in the positions they hold.
For goodness sake, Britain, wake up and stop for the fallacy of the "nothing to hide, nothing to worry about" fools!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Street View Sightings
http://streetviewgallery.corank.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Horrible Argument
1. He compares image capturing of people's neighborhoods with the British government tracking online behavior. That is his LEAD sentence, and it's a terribly erroneous analogy. Tracking the websites I visit is not akin to taking pictures of my house.
2. So let me get this straight...Carlo is defending the perceived invasion of privacy by Google, by claiming the government already invades these citizens' privacy? Come on, how old were you all when you learned two wrongs don't make a right.
Look, quite frankly, I am not scared of Google Streetview. that being said, if these British citizens have a problem with it...SO WHAT! The funny part is, had anyone actually read the article in the Guardian yesterday about this...they'd have realized there has actually been an increase in burglaries in the area, which has been attributed to street view. Regardless of whether or not streetview is the culprit, it is common perception..and certainly makes sense why people are hesitant about the video cameras.
Just because half the world has gone lifestreaming crazy and want to broadcast every mundane tidbit of their lives for the whole world to see, doesn't mean the other half of the world shouldn't have their privacy respected.
Why is that so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horrible Argument
I actually think it's perfectly apt. Carlo's point is that these folks are complaining about their privacy being violated because Google's taking photos from the street of their homes -- which ANYONE CAN DO just by standing out there in public. Yet, at the same time, the gov't is (illegally in many cases) tracking all sorts of *private* info, and they're not nearly as upset.
I think his point makes a ton of sense.
I'm confused why you do not.
2. So let me get this straight...Carlo is defending the perceived invasion of privacy by Google, by claiming the government already invades these citizens' privacy? Come on, how old were you all when you learned two wrongs don't make a right.
That's not what he said at all. What he said was (a) what Google is doing (taking photos in public places) is not a violation of privacy and (b) the actual violation of privacy is elsewhere. I thought it was kinda clear.
The funny part is, had anyone actually read the article in the Guardian yesterday about this...they'd have realized there has actually been an increase in burglaries in the area, which has been attributed to street view. Regardless of whether or not streetview is the culprit, it is common perception..and certainly makes sense why people are hesitant about the video cameras.
So, because a bunch of people are wrong, it's ok? I'm having trouble with the logic here...
Just because half the world has gone lifestreaming crazy and want to broadcast every mundane tidbit of their lives for the whole world to see, doesn't mean the other half of the world shouldn't have their privacy respected.
Uh... but this doesn't violate anyone's privacy. How hard is that to understand? This is taking photos IN PUBLIC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horrible Argument
You automatically assume that no one has read the article? I've read about 6 today alone. I know that they justified their actions by stating that there has been 3 robberies in the last 6 months. I also know that their town is NOT on Google street view, never was. It seems to me like these thieves can rob these people blind just fine without street view and they will just blame Google for it.
Look at this from another angle. What would happen if I decided to take a picture of the neighborhood, say I wanted to move there? If these people had a problem with it and ran me out of town, the cops would have a problem with them and not me, and the articles would be about a horrible mob attacking some innocent who was not in violation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What some of you seem to be forgetting ...
In fact, you might help your non-tech friends who may be unaware of SV, by letting them know their houses are in SV and show them how to remove the photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The complaints in the articles linked about Google Maps seemed to fall into two catogories: A) This will increase crime / make crime easier, and B) They shouldn't be allowed to do this without consent. The governmental examples are actually touted as anti crime measures, and given the limited access and requirement for a valid reason to access information, consent is less of an issue too. Privacy from the government over comms records and public privacy from photos are pretty distinct issues.
Ultimately these people haven't got a leg to stand on legally - as Mike said, photos in public - and in my opinion they are also wrong about the supposed "dangers". Most of them probably know that. They just feel uncomfortable with the idea of people taking photos of their homes and posting them online, just like someone might if you took a bunch of photos of them walking in the street. That isn't even close to a good enough reason to stop Google, but it's not totally unreasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is more visible?
It's just like fighting terrorism. Which is more effective at stopping terrorism: posting heavily-armed guards at the airport in full view of the public or making sure intelligence agents use the latest technology to infiltrate and monitor communications between suspected terrorists?
Which is more visible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WH Funny
WH, are you really Masnick in disguise just stirring things up to generate more attention for this site??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are the same type of people who want MORE CCTV cameras because "the government is doing nothing on crime" yada yada yada.
Burgle them? I wouldn't want so much as to breathe the same air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Street View
Arguably the result would be to aid criminals and terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]