Angry Luddites attack Google Street View car

[Resinence]

Link

A gang of angry Luddites in Ye Olde Middle England have set upon an innocent Google Street View car driver in an attempt to save their lives from ruin.

"Angry villagers formed a human chain to thwart the progress of a Google Street View car that was in the process of taking photographs of their homes," reads a report in The Times.

Police were soon on the scene in the leafy village of Broughton in deepest Buckinghamshire with the "furious villagers" blocking the progress of the Google Street View car.

A burglar's charter

Local man Paul Jacobs, was quickly able to identify this moving threat to civilisation with its 360-degree snooping camera eye and was quick to warn his fellow villagers of the presence of the Google alien in their midst.

He warned the driver, telling The Times: "My immediate reaction was anger; how dare anyone take a photograph of my home without my consent? I ran outside to flag the car down and told the driver he was not only invading our privacy but also facilitating crime.

"This is an affluent area. We've already had three burglaries locally in the past six weeks. If our houses are plastered all over Google it's an invitation for more criminals to strike. I was determined to make a stand, so I called the police."

Thames Valley Police confirmed that one of its squad cars "was sent to Broughton at 10.20am on Wednesday to reports of a dispute between a crowd of people and a Google Street View contractor."

Because burglers can't just simply walk down the street looking at houses, no no, putting them on The Google makes them a target! Hilarious. So I assume it's not illegal for Google to take photo's of houses as long as the car stays on public property, correct?

[General Zod]

The article is dated April 2nd. You sure this isn't an April fools joke that got mixed in with the real news?

[Resinence]

I thought that too but aside from the sarcastic tone of the techradar article I can't find any indications that it is. There is a follow up blog dated apr 03 as well [Link] and a link to a times article. But still could be, I suppose.

[Oskuro]

Regardless of the veracity of the article, the point about privacy is interesting.

Around here, private entities (be it comercial or not) are not allowed to point cameras at the street, but can only survey their own property.

I'm guessing that the outside of a building is considered as part of the public area (that is, as part of the street), and as such taking as many pictures as you like is perfectly legal, or else the whole Google View thingie (and some equivalents we have around here) would have been sued to oblivion already. Of course, local legislations may vary.

As for my opinion, the privacy of a private property is the responsability of those within. I live in a flat at ground level, and people on the street can look into my room, hence it is my responsability to make sure curtains are drawn so no one can peek in, it would be unreasonable to expect passers-by to not look.

[Bounty]

The article is factual, but the tone is just ridiculous. "Angry Luddites"? These people don't want their neighbourhood plastered over the internet; you can debate the use of that until he cows come home but it's hardly a stance against technology itself. And where does the "attack" come from? Where they forming a threatening human chain? Did they hurt the driver's feelings?

[Dahak]

A lot of cities and states around here are trying to shut street views down for reasons of data protection and privacy rights. By data protection law, Google is required to make faces, license plates, and house numbers unreadable.

[El Moose Monstero]

Because burglers can't just simply walk down the street looking at houses, no no, putting them on The Google makes them a target! Hilarious. So I assume it's not illegal for Google to take photo's of houses as long as the car stays on public property, correct?

I had to do something similar for the city council in my home town in the UK which involved photographing buildings without necessarily having owners consent. The guidance I was given was to explain what was actually a fairly innocent purpose for being there, avoid confrontation but when pressed, to point out that photographing the frontage of any building from legal public footpaths or roads was perfectly legitimate.

I find this whole business hilarious, GoogleEarth would be much more use as a criminal - you can actually look for ways in around the back, plan routes etc, and you can scope out what things are out of sight - i.e. a jacuzzi or something in the backgarden (or even just a large shed) which might indicate a likely target. The view from the front might give you some indication of affluence, but what can you get from google that you couldn't get from pretending to be a jehovah's witness or a leaflet deliverer and actually gain access directly.

[salm]

A lot of cities and states around here are trying to shut street views down for reasons of data protection and privacy rights. By data protection law, Google is required to make faces, license plates, and house numbers unreadable.

Is that the reason why Google took away Street View from us? I just checked Google Maps and the Street View button is gone. Not only on google.de but also on google.com.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I've seen the google street-view of my apartment, you can actually see my front window, and some of my posters in my living room.

[Executor32]

No, Street View is still there. You have to drag the orange person icon above the zoom bar onto the map, then drop the icon on one of the streets now highlighted in blue to go into Street View.

[Dahak]

A lot of cities and states around here are trying to shut street views down for reasons of data protection and privacy rights. By data protection law, Google is required to make faces, license plates, and house numbers unreadable.

Is that the reason why Google took away Street View from us? I just checked Google Maps and the Street View button is gone. Not only on google.de but also on google.com.

No, so far it's legal. They had put scanning neighbourhoods in Schleswig-Holstein on hold last year for above reasons, but so far I don't know of any court decision against it...

[salm]

No, Street View is still there. You have to drag the orange person icon above the zoom bar onto the map, then drop the icon on one of the streets now highlighted in blue to go into Street View.

Ah, thanks i didn´t notice the orange guy. But damn, Germany still isn´t in the Street View thingy. I´m pretty sure i´ve been photographed several times when driving by the Google cars.

[Broomstick]

I confess to somewhat mixed views about Google and it's maps and street views. I do find it a little uncomfortable to have it so easy to find my location (one reason I've made some effort to keep my internet and real identities somewhat separate - googling my real name you'll pull a few links, but there is no direct connection to the netizen "Broomstick". And vice-versa So far.) But for finding places, planning travel, and the like it's invaluable. Recently I've been using satellite and street view when going to interviews and new jobsites to get a better idea of what I'm looking for, and for parking in the area.

It's a tool, and like any other tool it can be used or abused.

Though, honestly, what I've seen from a small airplane just blows away anything in Google - perhaps that's why the wealthy, the folks who like to sunbathe in the nude, and people growing pot in our local, state, and national parks really would like to get private pilots out of the skies over the US.

[Oskuro]

Though, honestly, what I've seen from a small airplane just blows away anything in Google - perhaps that's why the wealthy, the folks who like to sunbathe in the nude, and people growing pot in our local, state, and national parks really would like to get private pilots out of the skies over the US.

The wealthy? Are they so modest they dislike others watching their wealth from above?

[Simplicius]

While I would certainly feel squicky about Google or anyone else photographing my residence, in the US or UK I would just have to deal with it, and so do the people in the OP. The Street View contractor is entirely with his rights to make photographs of private property from a public place or from a piece of private property where he has permission to stand and where photography is not forbidden as a condition to entry. The claims of privacy violation are also erroneous: 1.) Privacy applies to people, not their property; 2.) Privacy is only violated if they are photographed in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e. sequestered in a home, restroom, dressing room, etc. And Google has been doing the necessary ass-covering to avoid falling afoul of data protection laws as well.

What is really amusing is that an actual burglar could walk down the street making reference photos of houses he planned to rob and not only would he be within his rights to do so, but his camera and photos could not be seized by police or homeowners.

US photographers' rights guideline (PDF): http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
UK photographers' rights guideline (PDF): http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

[Darth Wong]

I confess to somewhat mixed views about Google and it's maps and street views. I do find it a little uncomfortable to have it so easy to find my location (one reason I've made some effort to keep my internet and real identities somewhat separate - googling my real name you'll pull a few links, but there is no direct connection to the netizen "Broomstick". And vice-versa So far.)

Keep in mind that this technology is non-discriminatory, ie- it's easy to find your location but it's also easy to find the location of everyone else in the country, so you're not going to be singled out for any more special attention than you were before. And if you're worried about very specific individuals hunting you down for personal reasons, well, they were able to do that long before Google.

[Darth Wong]

While I would certainly feel squicky about Google or anyone else photographing my residence, in the US or UK I would just have to deal with it, and so do the people in the OP. The Street View contractor is entirely with his rights to make photographs of private property from a public place or from a piece of private property where he has permission to stand and where photography is not forbidden as a condition to entry.

Indeed, one would have to criminalize pretty much all outdoor photography where any dwellings are visible if one were to take the extreme view on privacy which is advocated by some of these people.

[Solauren]

Google maps also has very legimate uses, beyond getting directions that is.

I'm semi-actively house-hunting right now, and I've found google maps to be a nice way to give the neighbourhood, and even the property of interest, a quick once over before deciding if it's worth my time.

i..e real distance to nearby parks and schools, what's nearby, what does the backyard look like, etc.

[Broomstick]

Though, honestly, what I've seen from a small airplane just blows away anything in Google - perhaps that's why the wealthy, the folks who like to sunbathe in the nude, and people growing pot in our local, state, and national parks really would like to get private pilots out of the skies over the US.

The wealthy? Are they so modest they dislike others watching their wealth from above?

Yes, some of them.

Some of them also have extensive amounts of potentially portable property (car collections, boats, etc.) stored on their "back lot", so to speak, that is not visible from a road but definitely from the air. A twelve foot privacy fence does squat when I'm looking down from several hundred meters onto your estate.

There are some folks, even out where I am, who own extensive spreads of land who also think they own the skies above. They don't. In the US, the Federal government owns the skies (not even state or local governments) and pilots are as free to use the skies as drivers are to use the Interstate System of roads.

I confess to somewhat mixed views about Google and it's maps and street views. I do find it a little uncomfortable to have it so easy to find my location (one reason I've made some effort to keep my internet and real identities somewhat separate - googling my real name you'll pull a few links, but there is no direct connection to the netizen "Broomstick". And vice-versa So far.)

Keep in mind that this technology is non-discriminatory, ie- it's easy to find your location but it's also easy to find the location of everyone else in the country, so you're not going to be singled out for any more special attention than you were before. And if you're worried about very specific individuals hunting you down for personal reasons, well, they were able to do that long before Google.

Yes, I am aware of that. I tend to be a very private person in some respects, but I understand the difference between "my preference" and "my rights" (something many people do not).

As a now-official employee of the US Federal government and US Census Bureau I am 3/4 of the way through training, which, among other things, covers just where my authority as a government employee ends in regards to private property and obtaining information about it. The Feds are also very adamant about keeping anything we collect confidential (which is subtly different than private), at least for 72 years, and in some instances longer.

Google likewise does impose some protective measures - pixalation of some items already mentioned up-thread, for example. They are not to display anything that might endanger public safety. I'm sure there is an extensive list of rules and regulations under which they operate even if I'm not personally privy to them.

[Phantasee]

Street View is not allowed in Canada. I forgot the exact name of the position, it might be Privacy Commissioner, but she said that it infringes on our right to privacy, so no Street View here.

I'm glad for it, because my preference is that my home not be photographed. I've had to kick people off my property before, when they had no business being there (people driving into my truck yard while we're there working on trucks), but the one that bothered me the most was the guy who walked up and started snapping photos of our fleet, of us working on them, of the yard (and presumably the general layout).

I had to ask him to delete the photos off his camera (and it was a crappy compact digital, the sort you use to take pictures of your friends at parties, so it's not even like he could pretend he was a for real photographer). He wouldn't, until I explained to him the big guys with the large wrenches behind us were not happy to have their pictures taken. Kept saying he had every right to take our photos, every right to be there, on private property. I'm glad the Canadian Government agrees with my views, however, and not his.

[apocolypse]

I guess I don't really get the issue about having my residence photographed. I personally think that Street View is a great idea. I like to be able to see the place(s) that I'm going to, and hell, I've even used it to direct people. "You see that commercial building with two stories and the pillars in the front? That's where you're supposed to be!" type of thing. I also used it when I was apartment hunting so I could see what kind of amenities were in the general area without having to go to each and every place.

[Simplicius]

Street View is not allowed in Canada. I forgot the exact name of the position, it might be Privacy Commissioner, but she said that it infringes on our right to privacy, so no Street View here.

I'm glad for it, because my preference is that my home not be photographed. I've had to kick people off my property before, when they had no business being there (people driving into my truck yard while we're there working on trucks), but the one that bothered me the most was the guy who walked up and started snapping photos of our fleet, of us working on them, of the yard (and presumably the general layout).

I had to ask him to delete the photos off his camera (and it was a crappy compact digital, the sort you use to take pictures of your friends at parties, so it's not even like he could pretend he was a for real photographer). He wouldn't, until I explained to him the big guys with the large wrenches behind us were not happy to have their pictures taken. Kept saying he had every right to take our photos, every right to be there, on private property. I'm glad the Canadian Government agrees with my views, however, and not his.

It's not automatically true that he was wrong, depending on provincial law. In Ontario, e.g., and were your yard unfenced and without signage, he would have been within his rights until the moment you told him to leave and/or stop shooting. I'm curious as to what specific situation would apply and I'd be happy to do some research; I'd just need to know what province you live in.

And I hate to break it to you, but he was under no obligation to delete his photos. Whether made in lawful circumstances or not, and whether "professional" or not, they were his private property. Forcible deletion or the threat thereof would have constituted mischief and uttering threats, respectively, under the Canadian criminal code.

[Phantasee]

I'm in Alberta. We've got a fence of concrete blocks all around the property, with chain link separating the bit we use from the company that's renting out most of the land. Plus we've got barbed wire on top, and steel gates (although one was open, to allow us in and out).

I know it wasn't legal to get him to delete his photos, but his behaviour indicated to us that he was up to no good and it would not do us any favours to let him get away with them. And the part I have an issue with is his supposed right to be there. And we all know there's the line the law creates, and the line the people create, in specific situations. I think I've mentioned it before, our drivers aren't exactly fluent in Canadian English or Canadian law.

[Simplicius]

I'm in Alberta. We've got a fence of concrete blocks all around the property, with chain link separating the bit we use from the company that's renting out most of the land. Plus we've got barbed wire on top, and steel gates (although one was open, to allow us in and out).

I know it wasn't legal to get him to delete his photos, but his behaviour indicated to us that he was up to no good and it would not do us any favours to let him get away with them. And the part I have an issue with is his supposed right to be there. And we all know there's the line the law creates, and the line the people create, in specific situations. I think I've mentioned it before, our drivers aren't exactly fluent in Canadian English or Canadian law.

It depends on whether petty or premises trespass would be applied. Alberta's Petty Trespass law is similar to Ontario's in that a fence or other barrier meant to keep people out or animals in constitutes prohibition of trespassing even without posted notice. The Trespass to Premises law seems to apply more specifically; my guess is that it is for "public-private" places like malls. Under that law oral, written, or posted notice is necessary to prohibit trespassing. The penalties for violation and procedures for apprehension are the same for each.

Neither law made specific reference to lawful activities performed while trespassing, but the case elsewhere seems to be that when an explicit prohibition is made, a lawful activity on private property constitutes trespass. It might be the case that had you apprehended him and pressed charges, his photos could have been taken by court order to be entered as evidence, which would have legally removed them from him.