Google announces the end of privacy

What happens if the image is removed? Do you just get a 'Blurry mess' on that particular tile? I've always wondered as - basically - what you can see from space is technically public - if you don't want people to see what you're doing - be under cover. But my question still stands - what happens if the image is removed?

This case points to a more important problem with Street View and its associated technologies:

It changes the onus from the company to prove the justification for the invasion of privacy, to the public to justify why companies shouldn't be able to spy on them and publish private images or details about them, and let's not forget that once Google has published an image, it is out in the wild and cannot be retreived. Removal "after the fact" is not really removal at all - someone, somewhere still has a copy *and* the ability to distribute it worldwide. In the era of print, paper could be recalled and destroyed. Anyone still owning a copy wasn't in a position to redistribute to the same degree.

Google's argument is essentially, "We'll photograph whatever we want and if you don't like it then you let us know. After we've shown the whole lot to hundreds of millions of people."

A government by the people for the people would surely support the view that if Google wants to come around photographing us, or our property, it should get our permission first. This is not at all the same as entering a public space in which filming is taking place, permissions have been granted, and signage is in place stating "By entering this area you agree to be filmed". The onus should be on the companies to get our consent *prior* to coming round and filming our places of work and homes. IF you want to film me, you come and ask me first.

Our interests are quickly being sold down the river to reduce the administration costs of large behmoth corporations who want to do whatever they can make money from without having to justify it first.

Im no fan of Google and generally agree with your view that "dont be evil" is a brilliant marketing slogan, nothing more.

But when la Goog simultaneously claim to be upholding privacy while claiming it doesnt exist, they are not being hypocrites.

It seems pretty obvious that what theyre saying is "we will uphold your privacy - remove your house from street view, delete your x-noarchive postings from groups, etc - but you cant assume that everyone else will".

Sure, you can click on the link and remove pictures of your house from la Goog. You can email Flickr and ask them to remove {n} photos of your street. You can complain to the BBC about that stock photograph of Cardiff promenade with you in it etc etc. But you will *never* put this particular genie back in that bottle, and people are just going to have to get used to that.

Not saying its good or bad, just telling it like it is.

Anyway...

Who was the plaintiffs lawyer? Lionel Hutz?

A Google officer comments on a political situation and the Inq spins it into a headline that implies Google is teh evils.

They are right, privacy does not exist. But at the same time they value it by putting a way to keep it. No problem there.

OK, here's a perfect argument that would stop google in their tracks:

What if the boring's had no internet connection?

How would they even know their privacy was being violated? How would they click a link?

Just because they don't know their privacy is being violated does not mean it is ok. And then if they find out, how do they stop it? Where's google's procedure for people without internet connections? Now gimmie my 10 bylllyonnnn doaalllaaarz and run along.

I hope their lawyers were sharp enough to pull that little dagger out.

If one were to physically walk by the property in question (in the public street) and look at it - or even take a picture of it, has the homeowners' privacy been violated?

@lil ol' me
Thats precisely the issue, you are then suggesting (as they are) that anyone who walks along the street and happens to glance at their property is invading their privacy.
It'll be interesting if this goes somewhere and people are out on their nature strips suing passers by for invasion of privacy.

think about 'privacy' and 'anonymity' as a basic and fundamental _Human Right_!

Then make your considerations, conclusions, deductions and so forth...

If I can walk down a street and take pictures of what I see, then Google should be able to do the same thing. The US is already almost to full of rules to be called freedom anymore, and if they take the right away to view and take pictures of anything that's in public....then you might as well call America the next China.

I have no opinion on the merits of the case. But I would like to point out that the city is Pittsburgh, not Pittsburg.