Blurred German Houses Get Egged By Google Street View Fans
from the your-house-is-not-blurred-in-real-life dept
We found it to be somewhat silly that various folks in Germany could have Google blur the image of their house, as some sort of misguided privacy notion. As if to highlight the fact that if your house is blurred that it's not as if people can't see it in real life, it appears some overzealous Google fans have started throwing eggs at houses that chose to be blurred. As if the message wasn't clear enough, the houses that were egged also had notices taped to their mailboxes stating "Google's cool." That all seems a bit extreme (Google, rightly, is stating that this is not "acceptable behavior"). While I agree with Google that this is really childish behavior, there is a bit of a typical Streisand Effect to all of this. In trying to block the images of their homes, they have only served to call that much more attention to their homes.
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: germany, privacy, street view
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bad Eggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Eggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While the reaction from these (presumably) kids is stupid, what can the owners of that house possibly hide by blocking that photo, that cannot be clearly seen by somebody walking or driving past? I still cannot understand why a non-live picture of something clearly visible from the public street can be regarded as a privacy violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blur the news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blur the news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blur the news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
;-) just kidding of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
"this is why Google Streetview is so dangerous" -- I'M NOT KIDDING.
This wouldn't exist without the *new* technological means willfully employed by Google (paid for by whom? and for what purpose?), which focuses attention on those who want only to be unremarkable, and WERE until this sheerly engineered invasion of privacy.
It's only when *you're* affected that you complain about ordinary liberties being infringed, as with the TSA. When anyone's liberty is infringed, everyone's is.
@Trigger: "anti-privacy vandals" are obviously pro-Google, it's their corporate mission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
Doubly so if you consider the images are not real time, and in many cases, years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
Er, technically, this wouldn't have existed w/o Google employing the blurring out technology requested by the homeowners. So...homeowners request blur, Google complies, kids egg blurred houses...and you blame Google?
....Why?
"(paid for by whom? and for what purpose?)"
Uh, Google I guess? Or do you have different information?
"It's only when *you're* affected that you complain about ordinary liberties being infringed, as with the TSA. When anyone's liberty is infringed, everyone's is."
What privacy right was infringed upon in this instance? I'm not a pure fan of Google (mostly because I worry about their involvement w/certain international globalist groups, like the CoFR), but I don't get the complaint about street view....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They were obviously paid Gargle shills!!!!! This would never have happened, if Gobble's Sneak View project was strictly opt-in, like any intelligent person knows it should be. So few people would have opted in that Gobble would have just given up in Germany and there wouldn't be any blurred houses to egg!!!!! Goople is EVIL!!!!!
www.Pee2PeeNet.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not really about privacy
I've been following some blogs where Germans have weighed in on the subject, and it really seems to be more about socking it to Google. I'm a diehard SV fan myself and appreciate the Street View service but I also respect the wishes of people who want their homes blurred, for whatever reason. My only issue is with the large apartment complexes in downtown areas, especially those that seem to be part of largely commercial buildings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Datenschutz
for everyone to see.
quite funny, if you ask me.
http://www.rp-online.de/duesseldorf/duesseldorf-stadt/nachrichten/Buergerprotest-gegen-Google _aid_892897.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
"this is why Google Streetview is so dangerous" -- I'M NOT KIDDING.
This wouldn't exist without the *new* technological means willfully employed by Google (paid for by whom? and for what purpose?), which focuses attention on those who want only to be unremarkable, and WERE until this sheerly engineered invasion of privacy.
It's only when *you're* affected that you complain about ordinary liberties being infringed, as with the TSA. When anyone's liberty is infringed, everyone's is.
@Trigger: "anti-privacy vandals" are obviously pro-Google, it's their corporate mission.
**********
Great work, yes, if you do not submit you are the 'enemy', 'if you are not with us, you are against us'.
This is really going to help google's image, to no end, if you dont want you're privacy violated, TOO FREAKING BAD sucker !!!..
This is the type of thing that would ensure Governments put a stop to things like street view, it is a violation of your privacy rights. and opting out does not work..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
maybe germany is just weird like that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it comes down to scale...
Its monumental and it involves an object that a lot of people have come to believe is theirs and if given a choice would do something about it. I don't see this as hard to grasp in a intellectual manner. Also I don't see how you understanding a choice someone makes is a chance to belittle them. Privacy is a moral stand point based upon strong opinion and cannot truly be defined in any one way.
It comes down to the choices we make really, times are always changing and this obviously puts people on edge when a huge corp decides they are going to unload cars everywhere and picture everything. I can see it..can you tell me when you liked something you believed is yours surveyed? yes yes it can be done and already has to be sure, but this is more public and that knowledge is ignored by a lot of people that don't think outside the box and just want to work and sleep. Takes time to get over the desensitization and I honestly still see it as a useless idea and concept. end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think it comes down to scale...
Once somebody can actually explain that to me, then we can talk about implications of the future. Until then, this is no different from any photography of public places that have been published since the advent of the camera, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think it comes down to scale...
So instead of a world where the laws tell us what we can't do, you want a world where the law tells us what we're allowed to do? Where everything you do has to be specifically allowed by law, or it's illegal?
Its monumental and it involves an object that a lot of people have come to believe is theirs and if given a choice would do something about it. I don't see this as hard to grasp in a intellectual manner. Also I don't see how you understanding a choice someone makes is a chance to belittle them. Privacy is a moral stand point based upon strong opinion and cannot truly be defined in any one way.
Because the view of your house from the street isn't private. Depending on how busy your street is, dozens or even hundreds of people a day see your house. Not to mention that the owner's name isn't attached to the images, so for 99.99% of the people who will see the photos, it's just an anonymous house.
Takes time to get over the desensitization and I honestly still see it as a useless idea and concept.
You mean like streaming music and video? We've had radio and TV for years, delivering music and TV shows into our homes. Does anyone really NEED to be able to stream it over the internet? Or what about portable music and video players like the iPod? Is it really such a hardship to be without your own personal music and video library for the time that you're away from home? For that matter, does the average person really need the internet? I mean, sure it's convenient for a lot of things, but the general public got along just fine before AOL came along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bringing the public back
Basically what they are trying to do is to take pictures from the houses that have been blurred in Street View and upload them to Panoramio, then, Google Maps and Google Earth can show these pictures in their corresponding viewers...
I think that's a pretty cool idea, since it proves that the removed information belongs to the public and shouldn't had been blurred in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without privacy what do we have?
Young people of today have all the answers and information at their finger tips and yet they decide future laws by their emotions rather than reasoning. If these devices were applied to them directly they would be the first to scream privacy violations. People that believe anything in plain site dissolves privacy then they had better rethink what plain site means in today technological environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google blurring reaction
But, yes, people who want PUBLIC images blurred need professional help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google blurring reaction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of the holes
http://brainturnedoff.com/blog/blurred-houses-on-youtube/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]