PJ Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I guess what I object to is how literally anyone who has a computer - potentially billions of people - can now taske a good old peek at your lifestyle, your neighbours, your neighbourhood, what kind of car you have, how secure your property is, whether you have double glazing, when you last cut your lawn - etc. That sort of sums up how I feel about it, yes anyone can walk past your property, but having pictures of your property, with you possibly in them, on the net for all to see without your permission is a step too far. I'll be investing in a PO Box I think for any of my eBay purchases from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Here's my Supra at Soop Doggs house (before I brought it, so must have been before August last year), note the 'Supra parking' sign on the house as well http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1520/suprasio.jpg (can't see anything that would give away the location either, let me know if there is anything on there) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 It's not like you to be neurotic and paranoid?! I'm in favour of people being able to limit how much information is readily available about them. I think a problem is that the web has absolutely no effective barriers on its ability to disseminate information. The internet allows any aspects of your life you might want kept private to be flashed around the world in an instant, to a global audience of millions. And there's nothing that you can do about it once it's distributed on two million computers. We talk about the dangers of increased government monitoring but see nothing sinister in many private citizens- including children - able to film whoever they like on a mobile and distribute it to a global audience within minutes. To me, technologies like Streetview are yet another way to scrape away at the veneer of privacy. Technology and boredom makes voyeurs of us all and I think Streetview largely panders to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 (can't see anything that would give away the location either, let me know if there is anything on there) All the same if he didn't want a huge picture of his house on the web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 All the same if he didn't want a huge picture of his house on the web. Can't see what is wrong with that? I don't cover my house up during the day, so anyone can see it who walks past, no different really. If anyone can find his house somewhere in Norfolk going from a house number, then I'd be impressed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Can't see what is wrong with that? I don't cover my house up during the day, so anyone can see it who walks past, no different really. If anyone can find his house somewhere in Norfolk going from a house number, then I'd be impressed It's not really the same, is it? Presumably all the members of mkivsupra.net aren't wandering past your house. I don't see that your views about your own house are anything to do with someone else's views about his/her house. My guess is that Brian probably couldn't care less either way, but that is a guess. That's why I said 'it's all the same if he did mind.' Whether or not his house is identifiable as being a particular address is neither here nor there. Different approaches I guess, but just seems a matter of courtesy. I guess that's another reason that I don't like it - it's the assumption by Google that you don't mind, and that you have to actively opt out of the system if you don't want to be on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 My point was kinda that anyone can effectively see anything the google cameras have already taken photos of, obviously it would take more time/money to go see things, but it is possible. If I do get a PM asking me to remove it, then fair enough. As for the 'assumption' by Google, they aren't doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law, I guess it'll be down to individual cases (of which I think a few have already happened) whereby people didn't want their pictures being on there if they were doing something they shouldn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranz Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I've passed two of these cameras now...... both times I 'gave them the rods'! Publish that online you ******* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axle Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I tend to agree with those who feel it is somewhat invasive. Do we really need to see all these streets in such detail? It's strange, because if Joe Bloggs was to randomly walk the streets taking pictures of people and their homes, i doubt the majority of people would be overly impressed. Perhaps Google-Invasion is more of an ample name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 People might not be impressed, but there is no law (afaik) governing taking pictures in public. It is only if you trespass then you have a problem. At least Google are responding to individuals who don't want there picture on there, and most of the pics I have seen have peoples faces blocked out already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Sorry but walking passed someones property and looking in is totally different to the hi res images from a camera appearing on a website accesssed by billions of people. It is very invasive in my mind, i can't see any application where this information would be useful accept to spy on people. This sort of app benefits the bad people of the world I think i will drop my trousers if i see that van come down my street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzle Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 apparently you can have shots removed if your not happy, theres some of people taking a leak, havin a quickie in a field, kids playin in a pool etc that have been removed for obvious reasons... personally i dont like it, if someone wants to make the effort to come look at my house then fair play but i dont want the whole world and local scrotes surveying the area for sheds, get away routes, etc so much for privacy these days.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 I think you're all para and full of your own self-importance. There will be very few, if any at all, instances of wrong doing as a result of this project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 What makes you think that people who don't like it are "full of your own self-importance"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 There will be very few, if any at all, instances of wrong doing as a result of this project. http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=180306 Post two asks- 'Can't we use Streetview to track this person down'? Already, it's being suggested as a way of pursuing a dispute. Admittedly, in this instance it ain't going to work, but the point is that immediately in this little community, someone would like to use it with malicious intent. I think you're all para and full of your own self-importance. I sort of understand the self-importance comment, because who's going to bother to spy on some nobody anyway, right? However, I don't think you would use the same argument if the government insisted in bringing in measures to track everyone's car, or ID cards that held full biometric data. You would not dismiss those concerns as being the result of an inflated sense of self-importance. To me, having such direct high-res photos of - eventually - everyone's house, at street level, is another erosion of privacy. I'd actually be less concerned if the government was doing it - at least there are some legal restraints within that system. It's less to do with self-importance and more to do with a sense of control over what information is easily accessible to all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axle Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I think you're all para and full of your own self-importance. When it comes to our own homes, absolutely and why not? Telegraph article on Google Street View. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 What makes you think that people who don't like it are "full of your own self-importance"? Because nobody is remotely interested in 99.99% of us and our lives, and to suggest that this google application - which merely displays a snapshot of the world one day last year - will be used to 'spy' on us is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 However, I don't think you would use the same argument if the government insisted in bringing in measures to track everyone's car, or ID cards that held full biometric data. Yes but we're not talking about that, that's something else entirely! To me, having such direct high-res photos of - eventually - everyone's house, at street level, is another erosion of privacy. I'd actually be less concerned if the government was doing it - at least there are some legal restraints within that system. It's less to do with self-importance and more to do with a sense of control over what information is easily accessible to all. It's just pictures documenting a single moment in time, taken last year. You can't 'spy' on something that's static. How can that be an erosion of privacy, when your property is on public display in real time, 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 However, I don't think you would use the same argument if the government insisted in bringing in measures to track everyone's car, or ID cards that held full biometric data. You would not dismiss those concerns as being the result of an inflated sense of self-importance. Yes but we're not talking about that, that's something else entirely! In both cases, opponents have voiced concerns that are based on availability of information. And in both cases, it would be strange to impute 'self importance' as the motivation of those opponents. It's just pictures documenting a single moment in time, taken last year. You can't 'spy' on something that's static. There are many 'static' documents that can build an unwanted picture of someone's life. A receipt from six months ago, a credit card sttement, or a photograph. If I have a photo of you, taken without your permission (and actually I do ), then that constitutes capturing information about you. The Torygraph article that Axle posted has some good examples. How can that be an erosion of privacy, when your property is on public display in real time, 24 hours a day 7 days a week? It's an erosion of privacy because of (a) how many people have access to the information (b) how easily they can access that information and © how permanently that information is available. As things stand, in order to see how my detested ex-girlfriend is doing, I would have to make an 800 mile round-trip, physically walk along her street, which entails a risk of me being spotted and even challenged about it. Now I can get a photo of her house without even having to get off the sofa. Maybe I could start a website "ruthisaslag.com" and photoshop some amusing images on it to be forwarded by email by bored office workers. Facetious example, but what I'm saying is that once the information is out there, there is no controlling it. That's why I'm against integrating any means for easily gathering potentially personal information with an unregulated information distribution system like the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getrag Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Any my Supra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceRocket Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 my Supras ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benzsupra Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Here's mine at home [ATTACH]89752[/ATTACH] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Here's mine at home [ATTACH]89752[/ATTACH] Ah...the old Supra & Astra combo. An excellent choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ah...the old Supra & Astra combo. An excellent choice. I have an Astra + Supra too Surely nobody else... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 If I do get a PM asking me to remove it, then fair enough. Perhaps requesting permission to post the picture would have been better than awaiting request to remove Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.