Oh dear, I wonder how many more people now know about this small affluent village?
Referring to the second link, how childish can some adults be. They talk about kids being childish for the way they go on, and yet you have adults doing this sort of thing. It's a bit pathetic really. Do they not realise how childish this is, and over something as trivial as this. Come on the people concerned, act your age.
Doesn't mean there's any connection between the two incidents at all.
It doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see a likely connection though. I'm sure there will be further similar or worse incidents as more criminals get wise to the possibilities.
Google Street view may not be illegal but it is unwise and unecessary. If my house ever appears on it, I'll be demanding that the image is taken down at once (and I'm sure my neighbours will feel the same way so we'll hopefully get the entiire street off it).
Not to mention the fact that if Google are going to use a picture of my house to make money, which obviously they are, I want some or they can bog off!
It doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see a likely connection though. I'm sure there will be further similar or worse incidents as more criminals get wise to the possibilities.
Google Street view may not be illegal but it is unwise and unecessary. If my house ever appears on it, I'll be demanding that the image is taken down at once (and I'm sure my neighbours will feel the same way so we'll hopefully get the entiire street off it).
I think the whole of your street needs to start acting their age then.
It doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see a likely connection though. I'm sure there will be further similar or worse incidents as more criminals get wise to the possibilities.
Google Street view may not be illegal but it is unwise and unecessary. If my house ever appears on it, I'll be demanding that the image is taken down at once (and I'm sure my neighbours will feel the same way so we'll hopefully get the entiire street off it).
As someone has pointed out on the Mail comments, most burglars gain entry to a house from the back. So Street View images would would be no good anyway.
As someone has pointed out on the Mail comments, most burglars gain entry to a house from the back. So Street View images would would be no good anyway.
If anything, the aerial photos (especially the "birds eye" ones on Windows Live Maps) would be more use to burglars- and no-one's ever complained about them!
I think people just see the cameras and think, oh dear, oh dear, we can't have this. They don't seem to see that their house could be seen by anyone at all.
Screw that. I'm just going to go down there and look at each of their houses.
Surely the outside of your house is always on public display anyway?
This story baffles me.
What a strange thing to say. Your post adds nothing to the debate: is your case truly as weak as that?
That's your opinion. If your neighbours are childish enough to stop a car like that, then they do need to start acting their age. I didn't mean they were childish right now, but if they did do this.
I'm a bit undecided on this one - I can see the use of streetview, but I can also to an extent understand the objectors' point, though I'm not sure it's really an issue of privacy as such.
One key issue here isn't so much the taking of the photos, but what is done with them afterwards, and the difference between 'publicly visible' and 'viewable worldwide'. Pictures of houses in some village somewhere tend not to be published as being of a specific house on a specific street. If a photographer was going to publish a photo of a specific house they would probably have the manners to ask the owner/occupant. This is surely part of the objections - the drive-by just happens, with nobody being asked.
If I was selling my house, or if it was perhaps of special architectural interest, then I would expect that a picture of it would probably be available on the web, but in both of those cases I would be aware of it and (legally speaking perhaps unnecessarily) given permission.
If a person was walking down my street taking photos of every house, I *would* be wondering what they were up to, and would ask. Chances are, others would also ask. Entirely likely that everybody would just walk away without much fuss, simply because a person answered their question and was prepared to explain.
I think people just get a bit creeped out by this thing going past, and 'privacy' is the most convenient handle to grab.
Though what really astounds me is the vigorous and vehement defence of the rights of an international corporation to make a profit, even to the point of going and harrassing the people who dared to say "no".
I wonder if reactions (on either side) would be the same if it was a police car with a camera stalk on it? Or perhaps a big 'council tax reassessment team' sign on the side? Or, dare I say it, 'tv licence verification squad'?
It doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see a likely connection though. I'm sure there will be further similar or worse incidents as more criminals get wise to the possibilities.
Google Street view may not be illegal but it is unwise and unecessary. If my house ever appears on it, I'll be demanding that the image is taken down at once (and I'm sure my neighbours will feel the same way so we'll hopefully get the entiire street off it).
Maybe it's unnecessary to you, but there are hundreds of millions of other peeps in the world. Are you ashamed of your street? Is it a private one owned by you?
Anyway, you won't have to 'demand' anything. There'll be a little clicky button already on the photograph waiting for you. If you use it and be polite rather than demanding, we'll all be freed from the sight of your little shack before you can say 'paranoia'.
Anyone else here who lives in Milton Keynes (where this occured), like me, and fancies a little ad-hoc photography group meeting in Broughton on Sunday?
Hell - I'll even post them on that google earth feature that allows you to click on user uploaded photos of a location
Anyone else here who lives in Milton Keynes (where this occured), like me, and fancies a little ad-hoc photography group meeting in Broughton on Sunday?
If a photographer was going to publish a photo of a specific house they would probably have the manners to ask the owner/occupant.
Why? I've taken loads of photos all over the world and there are going to be houses or offices, or people, in the background. I am not going to ask any one of them for permission. It's the luck of the draw. A picture of your house, car or face may be on the net right now. Someone might be looking at it or printing it as I write.
If a person was walking down my street taking photos of every house, I *would* be wondering what they were up to, and would ask. Chances are, others would also ask.
You could ask. They could say absolutely nothing and carry on, without expecting to be given any hassle.
I wonder if reactions (on either side) would be the same if it was a police car with a camera stalk on it? Or perhaps a big 'council tax reassessment team' sign on the side? Or, dare I say it, 'tv licence verification squad'?
The police do have cameras and do film around already. They aren't using the footage for sinister purposes, so far, but I guess they could one day.
For council tax purposes, such a system would speed things up - but you'd need the photos to be regularly updated instead of a 'single moment in time' deal. So, no chances of the council using Street view just yet!
And TV licensing.. well, I'm still pretty sure they find it rather a lot easier to consult a list of addresses and target the ones that don't have a licence. Looking at millions of pictures at loads of angles (and multiple zoom levels) to spot a TV in a shadow, or a satellite dish on the roof is something that would cost far more than whatever the fee is these days.
BUT, despite all that, you couldn't stop any of the above doing it.
I was expecting some tackily Google decorated van or something, not an drab rep mobile with what looks like a series of loudspeakers on the roof. It's going to make spotting it much harder. I want to wave at it, or something.
These are snooty village folk though, and such reactions to outsiders should be expected. Even though they may have a right to be a bit miffed at Google's uninvited intrusion, it's not like they're the Ordanance Survey.
I was also hoping this was Broughton, near Aylesbury, not that windswept, bleak hell hole up north...
I was expecting some tackily Google decorated van or something, not an drab rep mobile with what looks like a series of loudspeakers on the roof. It's going to make spotting it much harder. I want to wave at it, or something.
I was also hoping this was Broughton, near Aylesbury, not that windswept, bleak hell hole up north...
These are snooty village folk though, and such reactions to outsiders should be expected. Even though they may have a right to be a bit miffed at Google's uninvited intrusion, it's not like they're the Ordanance Survey.
Comments
Referring to the second link, how childish can some adults be. They talk about kids being childish for the way they go on, and yet you have adults doing this sort of thing. It's a bit pathetic really. Do they not realise how childish this is, and over something as trivial as this. Come on the people concerned, act your age.
Google Street view may not be illegal but it is unwise and unecessary. If my house ever appears on it, I'll be demanding that the image is taken down at once (and I'm sure my neighbours will feel the same way so we'll hopefully get the entiire street off it).
Not to mention the fact that if Google are going to use a picture of my house to make money, which obviously they are, I want some or they can bog off!
I think the whole of your street needs to start acting their age then.
As someone has pointed out on the Mail comments, most burglars gain entry to a house from the back. So Street View images would would be no good anyway.
If anything, the aerial photos (especially the "birds eye" ones on Windows Live Maps) would be more use to burglars- and no-one's ever complained about them!
We'll have no Google here!
no diea if this has been posted or not. made me laugh
Screw that. I'm just going to go down there and look at each of their houses.
Surely the outside of your house is always on public display anyway?
This story baffles me.
Ha ha. You have to be joking. Is this comedy hour
That's your opinion. If your neighbours are childish enough to stop a car like that, then they do need to start acting their age. I didn't mean they were childish right now, but if they did do this.
Er yeah I know, it was a hypothetical example for comparison.
See above.
One key issue here isn't so much the taking of the photos, but what is done with them afterwards, and the difference between 'publicly visible' and 'viewable worldwide'. Pictures of houses in some village somewhere tend not to be published as being of a specific house on a specific street. If a photographer was going to publish a photo of a specific house they would probably have the manners to ask the owner/occupant. This is surely part of the objections - the drive-by just happens, with nobody being asked.
If I was selling my house, or if it was perhaps of special architectural interest, then I would expect that a picture of it would probably be available on the web, but in both of those cases I would be aware of it and (legally speaking perhaps unnecessarily) given permission.
If a person was walking down my street taking photos of every house, I *would* be wondering what they were up to, and would ask. Chances are, others would also ask. Entirely likely that everybody would just walk away without much fuss, simply because a person answered their question and was prepared to explain.
I think people just get a bit creeped out by this thing going past, and 'privacy' is the most convenient handle to grab.
Though what really astounds me is the vigorous and vehement defence of the rights of an international corporation to make a profit, even to the point of going and harrassing the people who dared to say "no".
I wonder if reactions (on either side) would be the same if it was a police car with a camera stalk on it? Or perhaps a big 'council tax reassessment team' sign on the side? Or, dare I say it, 'tv licence verification squad'?
Maybe it's unnecessary to you, but there are hundreds of millions of other peeps in the world. Are you ashamed of your street? Is it a private one owned by you?
Anyway, you won't have to 'demand' anything. There'll be a little clicky button already on the photograph waiting for you. If you use it and be polite rather than demanding, we'll all be freed from the sight of your little shack before you can say 'paranoia'.
Hell - I'll even post them on that google earth feature that allows you to click on user uploaded photos of a location
Why? I've taken loads of photos all over the world and there are going to be houses or offices, or people, in the background. I am not going to ask any one of them for permission. It's the luck of the draw. A picture of your house, car or face may be on the net right now. Someone might be looking at it or printing it as I write.
You could ask. They could say absolutely nothing and carry on, without expecting to be given any hassle.
The police do have cameras and do film around already. They aren't using the footage for sinister purposes, so far, but I guess they could one day.
For council tax purposes, such a system would speed things up - but you'd need the photos to be regularly updated instead of a 'single moment in time' deal. So, no chances of the council using Street view just yet!
And TV licensing.. well, I'm still pretty sure they find it rather a lot easier to consult a list of addresses and target the ones that don't have a licence. Looking at millions of pictures at loads of angles (and multiple zoom levels) to spot a TV in a shadow, or a satellite dish on the roof is something that would cost far more than whatever the fee is these days.
BUT, despite all that, you couldn't stop any of the above doing it.
These are snooty village folk though, and such reactions to outsiders should be expected. Even though they may have a right to be a bit miffed at Google's uninvited intrusion, it's not like they're the Ordanance Survey.
I was also hoping this was Broughton, near Aylesbury, not that windswept, bleak hell hole up north...