Google Pretty Much Gives Up on Street View in Germany

[aGameOfThrones]

Instead of Germany banning Street View last year as expected, Google's been the side to wave the white flag and bow out of the war. It's unclear what prompted this move, but with nearly 250,000 people having opted to have their houses blurred instead of displayed for the whole internet to see, it could be that Google simply realized it was more trouble than it's worth.


http://m.gizmodo.com/5790716/google-pretty-much-gives-up-on-street-view-in-germany

[123tim]

I didn't realize that you could opt to have your house blurred out.....

Probably means that Germans are smarter than I am. :)

Of course, if my house would appear on Google, I would be trying every avenue to have it removed regardless of my prior knowledge on the subject.

[123tim]

Well, after reading a bit it seems that this might only be possible in Germany.....

Seems that in the U.S. it must be a ridiculous subject:


In one of the more ridiculous overreactions to screams of "privacy," Germany recently required Google to agree to "blur" any Street View images at the request of property owners.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/04080811682/google-begins-blurring-german-houses-in-street-view-on-request.shtml

[sailingaway]

They should pass the same laws here. My kids used to jump on the trampoline in their underwear until google earth became so clear.... Why shouldn't people have privacy in their own back yards?

[Anti Federalist]

But I thought "private" mega/global/hyper corporations could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted?

Good for the Germans.

Let my house show up on Screwggle, I'll sue 'em blind, or at least try.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

They should pass the same laws here. My kids used to jump on the trampoline in their underwear until google earth became so clear.... Why shouldn't people have privacy in their own back yards?

Google Earth is not live. They take one new image every year or so.

So if are worried - just look at your house on Google Earth - and check the image date - and that should tell you if a new image is pending soon.

[Vessol]

images from google street view are old as hell. the one from my old house when I was 16 is still there, showing my old car.

honestly, I'm not that worried about google street view.

The government has technology 10 times better no doubt and has dozens of other routes to find stuff about me. Why should I be worried about some stranger on the internet seeing my house?

[Anti Federalist]

Google Earth is not live. They take one new image every year or so.

So if are worried - just look at your house on Google Earth - and check the image date - and that should tell you if a new image is pending soon.

This isn't about the satellite images, its concerning the "street view" images, taken by people, basically right at your front door.

[Anti Federalist]

images from google street view are old as hell. the one from my old house when I was 16 is still there, showing my old car.

honestly, I'm not that worried about google street view.

The government has technology 10 times better no doubt and has dozens of other routes to find stuff about me. Why should I be worried about some stranger on the internet seeing my house?

That sounds disturbingly like "Why do you care? If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worrying about?"

I'm "worried" because it's my house, mine, and I'll decide if I want to broadcast pictures of it all over the web, not some megacorp (which has ties to government) and their armies of spooks.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

This isn't about the satellite images, its concerning the "street view" images, taken by people, basically right at your front door.

Ah, ok - well, he had mentioned back yards - so I figured the satellite view.

The backyards don't show for my house in street view - just the view from the street - but I suppose every house is different vantage.

[Vessol]

I'm not saying "Why do you care?", I'm just saying that I don't think that the government is going to use images collected by a van years ago for any purpose when they probably have technology that vastly outstrips it.

[Anti Federalist]

Ah, ok - well, he had mentioned back yards - so I figured the satellite view.

The backyards don't show for my house in street view - just the view from the street - but I suppose every house is different vantage.

Yeah, some do, some don't, depends on the house.

I know a few people that have had their "street views" removed because the only way the google spook could have gotten the picture was to drive down a private road.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not saying "Why do you care?", I'm just saying that I don't think that the government is going to use images collected by a van years ago for any purpose when they probably have technology that vastly outstrips it.

You're probably right, but it's a matter of principle for me.

You can't broadcast a TV image of me without getting a release, you should not be able to broadcast detailed pictures of my home all over the web without my permission.

[goldencane]

I don't have a problem with street view. Our houses are visible to the public, if you don't want yours to be, build a wall. Google is not putting anything up that anybody who drives by your house can't already see. I happen to live across from a park, if someone takes a picture of their kid and my house is visible in the background, should I get upset with them? Or are anti-street view people just anti-large corporations? Street view is not an invasion of privacy by any means, as everything shown is publicly viewable.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't have a problem with street view. Our houses are visible to the public, if you don't want yours to be, build a wall. Google is not putting anything up that anybody who drives by your house can't already see. I happen to live across from a park, if someone takes a picture of their kid and my house is visible in the background, should I get upset with them? Or are anti-street view people just anti-large corporations? Street view is not an invasion of privacy by any means, as everything shown is publicly viewable.

There is a very large difference between somebody driving by and somebody taking a picture to put in a global database viewable by the entire world.

You're telling me I have no right to control how images of myself, property, vehicles and family are broadcast to the world?

And what is the practical difference between what google is doing and what government does?

Using that same logic, all the government spy cameras are just fine and dandy as well.

ETA - And yes, I will openly and without shame admit to being just as hostile toward big business trampling privacy and rights as I am to big government.

At the end of the day, corporate tyranny is just as bad as government tyranny.

[VBRonPaulFan]

There is a very large difference between somebody driving by and somebody taking a picture to put in global database viewable by the entire world.

You're telling me I have no right to control how images of myself, property, vehicles and family are broadcast to the world?

And what is the practical difference between what google is doing and what government does?

Using that same logic, all the government spy cameras are just fine and dandy as well.

he's probably saying that you're looking a bit hypocritical unless you go ape shit on anyone who walks by your house with a camera, in fear that they'll take a picture of your house and possible put it up on the internet, viewable by anyone in the entire world...

[Anti Federalist]

he's probably saying that you're looking a bit hypocritical unless you go ape shit on anyone who walks by your house with a camera, in fear that they'll take a picture of your house and possible put it up on the internet, viewable by anyone in the entire world...

Somebody creeping around my house taking pictures without my permission, might not like what happens next. (edited for "harshness")

I've spent a great deal of money to maintain my privacy in where I live and how my home is arranged, I don't live in a tract home in a development.

I have a right to protect that investment in privacy.

[Kludge]

I don't have a problem with street view. Our houses are visible to the public, if you don't want yours to be, build a wall. Google is not putting anything up that anybody who drives by your house can't already see. I happen to live across from a park, if someone takes a picture of their kid and my house is visible in the background, should I get upset with them? Or are anti-street view people just anti-large corporations? Street view is not an invasion of privacy by any means, as everything shown is publicly viewable.
My PoV, too. However, the use of Street View is in finding the buildings near the one you want to go to so you won't miss where you're going. I'm not sure if there's any other use -- maybe Google should consider not photographing residential zones to keep people happy.

[puppetmaster]

How does the street view taken from a public area differ from that of an individual filming the very same shot and posting on the web? Don't we fight for legal video from public areas of cops? Do people have an expectation and right of privacy from an area on their property that is exposed to public property?


I also live on a private road....no view of my home except from the sky......can you prevent that?

[Kludge]

How does the street view taken from a public area differ from that of an individual filming the very same shot and posting on the web? Don't we fight for legal video from public areas of cops? Do people have an expectation and right of privacy from an area on their property that is exposed to public property?


I also live on a private road....no view of my home except from the sky......can you prevent that?
When I lived on a large rural plot of land, people'd often take pictures from the sky, come right up to our door, and try to sell them to us.

Would you shoot them, AF? :p

[brandon]

That sounds disturbingly like "Why do you care? If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worrying about?"

I'm "worried" because it's my house, mine, and I'll decide if I want to broadcast pictures of it all over the web, not some megacorp (which has ties to government) and their armies of spooks.

Do you own the light waves reflected off your property?

[puppetmaster]

When I lived on a large rural plot of land, people'd often take pictures from the sky, come right up to our door, and try to sell them to us.

Would you shoot them, AF? :p


I just may....not a real fan of trespassing!

[goldencane]

There is a very large difference between somebody driving by and somebody taking a picture to put in a global database viewable by the entire world.

You're telling me I have no right to control how images of myself, property, vehicles and family are broadcast to the world?

And what is the practical difference between what google is doing and what government does?

Using that same logic, all the government spy cameras are just fine and dandy as well.

ETA - And yes, I will openly and without shame admit to being just as hostile toward big business trampling privacy and rights as I am to big government.

At the end of the day, corporate tyranny is just as bad as government tyranny.


I wouldn't consider one or two pictures a year of publicly visible property spying. And if your picture is taken in public, people have a right to put that picture on the internet. That does not allow them to slander you or anything like that, but they aren't doing that. And I too am all over corporations violating privacy and personal freedoms, but google is not doing that. Some people say everything large corporations do is wrong though just because they are a large corporation, I do not. If that picture was of a celebrity walking by your house on the sidewalk, would you demand it be taken down? Millions of people would see it.

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[Kludge]

^^ That's really more of a luddite argument. Cars also allow people to drive by and "case" property much quicker than if they had to walk to each destination. Should modes of transportation faster than walking also be outlawed?

[daviddee]

...

[Kludge]

With cars, data collection rate increases dramatically for people seeking to case houses. Aside from that use of cars, the government can more quickly inflict tyranny by moving LEOs around faster, and monitor liberty-minded people more robustly.

[eduardo89]

My apartment building in Berlin was blurred out for some reason. I don't even remember them sending around letters asking us if we wanted to opt-out.

[daviddee]

...

[eduardo89]

I have no idea why my place is blurred out...

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4162/screenshotsxm.png

[Anti Federalist]

When I lived on a large rural plot of land, people'd often take pictures from the sky, come right up to our door, and try to sell them to us.

Would you shoot them, AF? :p

Well, I don't know about all that, but they would not have a pleasant conversation, I can assure you that. ;)

[Kludge]

I am still unclear where your comment has any relevance to what was originally discussed.

We are talking about databasing images of every street in the nation and the private property on those streets. Which is a violation of the most simplest forms of privacy. This is recognized in most every nation fighting Google.

I mentioned the casing of houses as an example. You twisted this into an example that did not discuss data collection, data retention, etc etc.
I have already made the case that cars increase data collection and retention. It decreases privacy and increases risk to liberty-minded people. Further, it empowers the state by allowing LEOs to enforce tyrannical policy more efficiently. You made an argument that because Street View technology allows people to collect data on homes, per your example, at an increased rate, it should be banned. My pointing out that cars also fit that description has yet to be refuted and was made to point out how ridiculous your suggestion that because Street View increases data collection and retention by unsavory characters (including gov't), it should be outlawed.

[Anti Federalist]

Do you own the light waves reflected off your property?

What if "real time" surveillance was set up, with a Google camera taking pictures every 15 seconds.

Is this ok?

What if it were a government camera?

[daviddee]

...

[Anti Federalist]

I have already made the case that cars increase data collection and retention. It decreases privacy and increases risk to liberty-minded people. Further, it empowers the state by allowing LEOs to enforce tyrannical policy more efficiently. You made an argument that because Street View technology allows people to collect data on homes, per your example, at an increased rate, it should be banned. My pointing out that cars also fit that description has yet to be refuted and was made to point out how ridiculous your suggestion that because Street View increases data collection and retention by unsavory characters (including gov't), it should be outlawed.

Neo-Luddism FTW.

[Kludge]

What if "real time" surveillance was set up, with a Google camera taking pictures every 15 seconds.

Is this ok?

What if it were a government camera?
What if your neighbor set up a video camera on his property which was pointed at your property?

[daviddee]

...

[Kludge]

In your opinion you have made your case.

I have yet to see a car that can store images, store data, and transport billions of people down a road on a moments notice.
The brain of the vehicle's occupants stores images, as well as a camera should they choose to bring one along.

[Kludge]

This has been ruled illegal in many states.
I'd be interested in a source for that, but I wouldn't doubt it. There was a recently a bill brought up in Florida which would outlaw pictures of their farms being taken because activists were photograhping unsavory animal treatment and waste disposal. However, just because gov't has deemed something illegal doesn't make the action a moral crime.

[Anti Federalist]

What if your neighbor set up a video camera on his property which was pointed at your property?

If it was pointing in my wife's bedroom window, he'd get a punch in the nose.

[Anti Federalist]

In your opinion you have made your case.

I have yet to see a car that can store images, store data, and transport billions of people down a road on a moments notice.

Yes, that ^^^

[daviddee]

...

[Kludge]

Officially in troll category.
u mad?

The car transports people fast. The brain and camera takes images. Thus, data collection rates increase, which you cite as a problem which needs law to correct. You even used the word "drive-by" in your original argument. You're right -- nobody needs to drive by an area to photograph it (less Google's team) with Street View technology to case a house. However, why stop there? Why should cars be allowed to exist when they pose the same threat to liberty-minded people? If everyone had to walk (assuming we banned all transportation tech), the ability to collect data on housing, times people occupy the house - etc, would be an incredible chore and a significant hurdle for the gov't to overcome (obviously, use of transportation must be banned for them, too) in monitoring liberty-minded peoples' activities.

Think about how dangerous phones are, though -- or the Internet! The government can collect and store data on us like never before. They would have had to have an actual human being go up to people having a conversation to monitor their communications, previously.

[Anti Federalist]

Think about how dangerous phones are, though -- or the Internet! The government can collect and store data on us like never before. They would have had to have an actual human being go up to people having a conversation to monitor their communications, previously.

Which is why I have a love/hate relationship with this new technological marvel we're constructing.

In fact, right now, it's more hate than love...

[Kludge]

Which is why I have a love/hate relationship with this new technological marvel we're constructing.

In fact, right now, it's more hate than love...
Same here. It's very useful for being comfortable insofar as being free of labor. Not so useful for being comfortable insofar as being free of gov't.

[aGameOfThrones]

In your opinion you have made your case.

I have yet to see a car that can store images, store data, and transport billions of people down a road on a moments notice.

Google's street view cars!

/S

[Zippyjuan]

I am still unclear where your comment has any relevance to what was originally discussed.

We are talking about databasing images of every street in the nation and the private property on those streets. Which is a violation of the most simplest forms of privacy. This is recognized in most every nation fighting Google.

I mentioned the casing of houses as an example. You twisted this into an example that did not discuss data collection, data retention, etc etc.

"Casing" a house involves continued observation- seeing who is home when. You can't get that info from a picture taken however long ago. Google map sees only what anybody else driving by can see. And it is not real time so not particuarly useful for that activity. The one of my place looks a couple years old.

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[Zippyjuan]

With Google, I can identify Golf Courses, Equestrian Communities, back roads, waterfront etc. All leading to site selection/"opportunities investigation". So this eliminates a ton of time as I narrowed down my targets with street view and found locations that only locals would know after living in a location for a long time. This also eliminates the possibility of drawing attention while aimlessly driving down dead ends, loops, etc.


Information available via ancient technology known as "maps".

[daviddee]

...

[LibertyRevolution]

I see nothing wrong with google street view. They drive down the street with a car with cameras on it.
If your house is in public view from the street, then you have no right to complain.

Google street view is useful when planning a trip to some where you have not been.
It is nice to see what that corner I have to turn at looks like before I get there, that way when I see it in person, I know that's my turn.

Also, the street view of my house is at least 2 years old.
My old car, and my girlfriends old car are in it. We own neither vehicle anymore.

Now google maps satellite view of my backyard, that kinda ticks me off. You could not get that image without trespassing..

[loveshiscountry]

I have no idea why my place is blurred out...

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4162/screenshotsxm.png

The Ron Paul for President banner maybe?

We scream when the authorities prevent us from taking pictures of airports but its okay to stop people from taking pictures of your house. Why?

[Kludge]

1. Data Retention - The human mind can not store terabytes of raw data and can not reproduce it on demand. You will retort with some troll response of "magic memory" and crayons and pencil drawing. This has been discussed repeatedly and you choose to ignore it.

I also mentioned cameras. I also don't think it's "magic" for someone to remember your house. That is data collection and retention even if it is only one person. Further, if a criminal (or gov't), they aren't going to rely on a Google picture taken 2 years ago - if they want to know the details of your property, they'll drive to your house and view it themselves.


2. Volume of people/data involved. Again, you continue to ignore.

Again, you continue to ignore that pictures can be taken from car (a necessary component in increased data collection rate -- Street View technology relies on CARS) can be - and are - used for the exact same purpose as Street View.


3. Ease of use

Cars and cameras are pretty easy to operate. It is more time-consuming to drive to the location, but if that's your argument, then again - cars fall into the same category of tech which should be banned, since walking would be multitudes slower.


4. Compilation of data with other sources.

I'm not sure how Google Street View has an advantage over something like cameras in a car in this case. In your last paragraph you cite a lot of examples which simply don't exist -- it's paranoia. If someone has released information like family photos and connected them to their address, that information is publicly released. Connecting publicly available information should not be punishable by law just because you don't like it or it may lead to an increase in criminal activity (which I also don't buy).


5. Access to this information by people who would otherwise NEVER be able to access this information. We have borders and immigration laws for a reason. Anyone, in the world, can view this information.

The problem I have with your argument, and not others against Google Street View - because I do oppose it - is that you think it should be criminal for making criminal activity easier, but that's a very slippery slope. Google is combating people using that line of thought right now - people who believe Google should be prosecuted because they link to websites which engage in criminal activity -- or how this entire forum is at risk because some members sometimes post copyrighted articles. You can rage against Google, but I can't see how you could argue outlawing people posting pictures of your property online (taken from off your property) is a legitimate function of government. What you're advocating is government censorship of the Internet because the information may be used for criminal purposes.

[daviddee]

...

[Kludge]

I am starting to believe there is a language barrier.

If English is not your mother tongue then I commend you for having the grasp of the language that you do... but at this point it is simply too time consuming to explain these points any further. You completely misinterpret the scale being described and misinterpret each and every bullet point.

If it is an intelligence issue, I again commend you to making the attempt to better yourself.
You're still replying.


You have no legitimate argument Google is committing any type of aggression by taking photographs of your property and posting it on the Internet. You can complain about the potential (unproven) unsavory uses of Street View all you want, but using gov't force because someone's doing something you don't like which may result in criminal activity is absolutely absurd.

How about some proof that Mexican drug cartels are using Google to plan assaults on US properties, or that Google is pasting family photos without consent at properties of peoples' houses viewed using Street View, or that ANY significant nefarious ends have come from Google Street View. Your blind hatred of Google has led you to paranoid conclusions about what people will do with your information -- or maybe it's the other way around.

[daviddee]

...

[Kludge]

You're off-topic again.

[daviddee]

...

[Kludge]

One of the more curious thing about your posting is that you said it was a waste of time for you to reply to me... three pages ago or so... but I'm the one who can't admit defeat?

[ARealConservative]

I don't have a problem with street view. Our houses are visible to the public, if you don't want yours to be, build a wall. Google is not putting anything up that anybody who drives by your house can't already see. I happen to live across from a park, if someone takes a picture of their kid and my house is visible in the background, should I get upset with them? Or are anti-street view people just anti-large corporations? Street view is not an invasion of privacy by any means, as everything shown is publicly viewable.

thank you!

and sadly, yes, many people here are anti-corporation, even when it means anti-freedom, or pro-litigation. of course mostr of those people also sit around telling us why voting is evil, or some such nonsense.

[daviddee]

...

[dannno]

Google Earth is not live. They take one new image every year or so.

So if are worried - just look at your house on Google Earth - and check the image date - and that should tell you if a new image is pending soon.

Or you could have your kids lie out nekkid in the backyard and sue the fuck out of google for distributing child porn.

[Kludge]

Learn Myers Briggs and you would already know the answer.

I am doing this for a reason.
Thanks -- I was worried that wasn't the case.

I've been posting pages of mostly nonsense because you undermined the legitimacy of the MBTI with ridiculous assertions (like claiming to be able to verify 100% if someone was a particular type if they have a mustache) in my thread and led to people comparing the indicator to fortune-telling or palm-reading. I was irritated by your postings because it made the MBTI look meaningless when I don't believe it to be the case. In fact, I like how concisely it can categorize and describe people, and helps us recognize the difference RPFs members have compared to the "typical" person. I was enthusiastic about analyzing the results and spent hours compiling the data to make graphs. I am committed to my wife and child, and had no problem making the commitment. I rely on my wife to provide me with the incentive to continue on. Your assessment was way off base, and I still feel bitter about it.

[Anti Federalist]

thank you!

and sadly, yes, many people here are anti-corporation, even when it means anti-freedom, or pro-litigation. of course mostr of those people also sit around telling us why voting is evil, or some such nonsense.

I think you'll find that most ana-caps (those are the ones who do not vote and refuse to take part in a rigged game) will agree with you 100 percent.

It's just this weird, tiny, "pseudo-populist" contingent, of which I am part, that seems to be hollering about corporate tyranny.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

That sounds disturbingly like "Why do you care? If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worrying about?"

I'm "worried" because it's my house, mine, and I'll decide if I want to broadcast pictures of it all over the web

It's not illegal to snap a picture of someone else's house and put it on the internet.

[Anti Federalist]

It's not illegal to snap a picture of someone else's house and put it on the internet.

I'm the last one to say "there oughtta be law".

But maybe it should be, especially when in a world wide database with commercial use.