I know we’re pushing the boundaries of technology all the time, but I’m beginning to wonder whether the “big boys” in the internet industry ought to curb some of their ideas. Unless the industry begins to police its excesses, I can only see that the day is getting nearer when legislation is introduced to govern the web.
Just take a look at the following video:
All these images are taken from Google’s latest offering: Street View, which is an enhancement of Google maps.
Now, my wife will tell you that I’m the world’s worst navigator, and sure enough if I can check out some local landmarks online before I travel then, yes, it increases my chances significantly of getting to my destination. I’m all in favour of that, but in order to have that, am I willing to accept that Google has a right to roam up and down every street with its cameras and allow its users to focus and zoom in where they will?
I don’t think so.
Like it or not, there’s an unsavoury element in our society that you will use this technology for its own ends and to the detriment of the rest of us.
I’ve just been for a trip down my mother-in-law’s street. She lives in a cul-de-sac in a suburb and happens to be 90 years old. Even though her image has not been recorded, I’m not at all happy that Google’s new service allows me to stop right outside her house, and zoom in on her bedroom window.
Has the information age gone too far? Let me have your views please.
Comments 5
Hi David! I think it’s great to be able to place live Google map/street cam views (and global maps) in general in a blog. But it is a hassle to install everything (not just plugins) for it to show up.
I’d be very interested to know if there’s an easier way to do it.
I was told that if anyone had his picture accidentally caught on camera (photos) hosted by Google, you can write to Google to have them removed. (In some countries, hosting a photo without the person’s permission is an offense.)
Posted 23 Mar 2009 at 5:01 am ¶David, Google as you now will know is already being taken to task in the U.K. for the photos of children being used which may result in their safety being compromised. So yes, it has gone too far in this instance. I would have thought that Google would, with their financial leverage, have been able to receive legal adviceas to ewhat safeguards to attach to a new service. It does not have to be legal advice, anyone could have advised them on this. The thing is tht a service such as this can be available PROVIDED that all care is taken how it can be used and ALL measures are put in place to stop abuse in advance of a launch.
Posted 23 Mar 2009 at 11:09 am ¶Hello Kelly and Jo,
Thank you for taking the time to let us know your views on street view.
I must admit that I thought there would be more reaction to Google’s new service. Perhaps people are just too used to having Google around.
I understand that Google is being challenged in the UK regarding invasion of privacy. On the other hand, I read in the press this week that Google is already sending its cameras into other UK cities. That being so, it obviously intends for street view to survive.
Let’s hope that the powers that be can curb its excesses - at the very least I think the zoom function should be disabled.
David
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 6:03 pm ¶PS Kelly, you may be interested in my next blog article, which shows how I put YouTube videos on my blog (it’s easier than you may think).
Looking on Google Street View, I found myself trying to think of more places that I could look up to see if they had been caught on camera. Whilst I enjoyed spotting cars, houses and landmarks that I knew, the novelty “nosey” factor wore off to leave me wondering how many people had done the same but in my street? I appreciate that the sheer scale of the project doesnt allow Google to go from door to door and ask people to consent to their house being caught on camera but an “opt out” after the fact doesn’t make me feel any better. If I ask for an image of my house to be blanked out but people can still zoom in close enough to read the numbers on my neighbour’s front doors, it merely becomes the fuzzy blob between numbers 4 and 8 Example Street, it doesn’t take a genius to work out where it is.
Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 7:29 pm ¶Google has pushed the boundaries and, certainly on this occasion has tested them and started a debate. If I sign up to a website I can check a box to prevent my details being passed on to third parties, yet Street View puts images on the internet first with the option to remove them second. I realise that I have no doubt been caught on numerous CCTV cameras in shops and streets but that serves a purpose in (I hope) preventing crime/catching criminals.
Street View has no obvious purpose, besides an aid to getting from A to B (for which there are maps).
As for whether the images of streets and people’s property available for all to view on the web is a step too far, only time and reactions will tell. However, the assumption of people’s permission to do this IS a step too far.
Hello Ali,
Thank you for your detailed comment and I must apologise for the delay in replying.
You highlight the dichotomy very well: if we want the freedom to roam where we will in Street View, will we accept the rights of others to do the same, even if the camera is pointing in our direction?
Google has assumed that it has a global permission to film where it chooses. Although, on at least one occasion, it has been granted official sanction to film: I believe it was in Bradford here in the UK, that one of the Google video cars was actually given police permission to drive in a “bus only” lane. The driver was able to produce the necessary proof when stopped by the local police and waved on his way. For some reason, though, the image of the police car has been removed from Street View!
Next stop a police state? George Orwell got just one thing wrong: he was 25 years too early.
David
Posted 22 Apr 2009 at 5:42 pm ¶Post a Comment