People in the UK stopped the Google 3-D Street Car because they feared criminals would use the images to target their homes. Are the villagers justified in believing Google has crossed the line or are they just being paranoid?
Here's the story from CNN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The villagers are completely justified in believe Google has crossed the line because this is one case where google is one step ahead of us in spreading our information. When we talk about Google acquiring Twitter it may be scary, but there's still the key fact that we are the ones choosing to send our personal information, second to second activities and personal interests out into the great wide void to be, theoretically, shared by all. But this is a case of someone who (although however unlikely) may have never even seen a computer let alone used the internet to spread their personal information and still Google has managed to invade their private lives.
ReplyDelete@Sammie Suchland ;)
ReplyDeleteSee...I don't know about this. It's one of those things where I ask myself, "who really gives a shit?" Personally, I list my address, I list my phone number, I list my e-mail, I list everything on the internet because I honestly (and maybe some day I will regret this) am under the impression that no one really cares about what I have to say, and if they do...then that is awesome because they will easily be able to get in contact with me.
Whether I lack the paranoia of others or simply have an idealist view of the world and the people on the internet, I fail to see what is so bad about our information being spread over the interwebz. Granted, I have seemed to more discuss the question about user-provided information and this certainly should be at the user's discretion but I fail to see the negative of the Google Streetview cam. Do these same individuals get worried when the neighbors take a picture of their house to list it on the market when they want to sell and their house is shown on the side? Where do we draw this line? Certainly I believe there should be a line drawn. I don't want a "Google Houseview" but I think with a little rational thought and enlightened thinking, we can come to the right "line" to draw without being overly paranoid and terrified of the big bad internet.
I agree with Kevin that this isn't necessarily a "too far" line. Streets are public domain (I think). If I were to walk into that village and take pictures to post to a blog, would they stop me? Could they stop me legally? Technically everyone on the internet can see these pictures, which maybe I would caption with street names. It would be just like Google's streetview.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there is the danger of misuse. I as mentioned in a comment elsewhere, it's very easy to use the internet to stalk people these days. But even before the internet, people could stalk others, and stake out places from afar. Libraries often have pictures and maps of places, for example. Should we be forbidding tourism books or informative maps because they might be misused?
While both your comments are very true and I'm also one of those people that has gamely entered personal information into more websites than I care to remember, I think there's still something to be said about consent when it comes to Google's gathering of information.
ReplyDelete@K Shiao (because Twitter jargon is just all too fun and useful)
I think there's a lot to the idea of misuse of information. Going off the idea of stalking, let's look at the now practically archaic phone book. People are given the option to be unlisted to keep their phone number and/or street address from public use. In doing so they maintain some degree of control over who knows how to contact them. But if you do choose to put information out there, you have some sort of cultural idea of the reason people would look up your number (to get in contact with you over the phone), the information they'll need to look up said information (a last name) and you know that all they are getting is your phone number and possibly an address (not a visual telling them how high the windows are from the ground). While this may not be the best example in the world, it does compare volunteered information when the use of that information is well known with withholding information when the use is unknown.
Now with the Google street view, there’s still no real practical purpose, designed or cultural, other than being able to look at real places in detail while on the internet (I realize Google Maps uses street view very practically, but does that justify all this information being so easily accessed by anyone, anywhere without the knowledge of those who the information technically belongs to?). There is also very little information necessary to gain that visual. You can begin prowling the streets anywhere you wish and there isn’t that buffer of information voluntarily given or withheld. There are those people that realize their street is now visible anywhere, anytime and Google isn’t really telling them why. To me this is one of the key reasons it scares people, the unknown factor.
And even if this same information can be sent out unknowingly through photos, tourism books, etc. there isn’t that ease of search that makes that specific information pop up. We’re not able to Google search aspects of a photo visually or without a proper tag so these sorts of things aren’t nearly as dangerous. To some degree, the danger of today is the ease of search/availability of information more so than the idea that the information is out there in the first place.
These people affluent areas of the U.K. are over-reacting. First off, if I was a criminal (emphasis on the if), I would use lots of other resources to find the true value of neighborhoods. For example, you can check City-Data to check the home price in each neighborhood, average income in different zip codes, etc...that gives far more detailed information that what is on Google. While Google can physically show how nice a house is, City Data provides greater evidence for a widespread area.
ReplyDeleteAnother resource I would use over Google to find how rich certain household are is a site called zillow.com. The reason why this would be even more helpful to find out the current net worth of a house is because it gives the most up to date sales figure on the house. Think about it this way in Los Angeles....I have close relatives who live in Los Angeles, specifically off of Beverly Glen Drive. They bought their house in the 1960's before real estate took off on the Westside. Are they rich? No. Is there house in a really affluent area? Yes. The people around them who bought in the 1990's and 2000's are actually the really wealthy ones with similar looking houses, while our relatives are small business owners who do well, but could never in a million years buy the same house in the same neighborhood, not even close. If they robbed my relatives because the house is big and looks good from Google Earth, they would be disappointed..
I guess I read this as being less about seeing how nice there houses were and more about what the neigborhood looked like from a logistic stand point. A suspicious car is quickly reported in an affluent area, but a prying eye from the internet would never be detected. I think you can interpret it as someone who already knows the networth of a house having a new resource to plan and all that. But honestly I don't think the fact that it's an affluent area worried about being robbed is the only issue here. There's still the matter of choosing to share information and having it acquired without your consent.
ReplyDeleteI understand the people's concern with their privacy especially due to the recent burglary in their neighborhood. But, Google did say that your home could be taken off in order to protect privacy. I believe this tool that Google has created is a fun way to see the rest of the world for those that cannot travel due to monetary means or health issues but I do believe that our privacy is in jeopardy. I have experience with being stalked over the internet and I fear letting someone look on a computer at my house, our cars, my family, etc as they easily could by just getting my address. But at the same time, that person can drive to my house and stalk me as well, so in a sense it is the same thing, just from a computer screen. I think the fact that Google stores so much information about each individual, now zeroing in on where you live and what your house looks like. is causing fear in the lives of many.
ReplyDelete