Windows Live and Privacy 372
An anonymous reader writes "Today as we were biking around our neighborhood in a small city we saw a strange vehicle slowly driving around. It appeared to be an SUV, bristling with cameras mounted on the roof, and pointing just about every possible direction. The first time we saw it, all we could see was that it had a sign on the side, something about Windows. The second time we saw it, we stared at it so hard that the driver stopped and we had a chance to ask him what it was all about. He said he was driving around, filming streets, and that there were people doing this all over the world, and getting data from the air too. It was going to be available on the Web. I asked him if this was Microsoft's answer to Google Earth, and he indicated that it was. There seems to be very little about this on the Web, and I found no mention of Microsoft's collection of this sort of detailed street level data. The Windows site appears to be http://preview.local.live.com/, although since I use a Mac it didn't work properly. I'm not sure I want my neighborhood viewable on the Web from ground level. And are they going to edit all the people out? I don't see how they could."
This is old news... kind of (Score:4, Insightful)
1) This is a project in MS lab that has been kind of limited
2) People don't like to talk about MS making things better
3) Soon yuu will see Google adding this feature as well. THEN, you will read about this and average Joe will tell you how Google innovates and MS catchs up [bg]
Driving directions (Score:3, Insightful)
You're in public == you have no privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
An anonymous reader? Suspicious (Score:1, Insightful)
Woe is me ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is old news... kind of (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not all! (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, how dare they?! Taking a photo of something in a public place*, right out in the open, then putting it on the web! I should sue!!!
(* Note to pedants - no, my driveway isn't public, but it's open to the street and plainly visible from the pavement)
Privacy concerns? Don't make me laugh. If they start sending people into private buildings with cameras, get back to me. In the meantime, kdawson, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for allowing such a spin to be put on this story.
Re:You're in public == you have no privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course /everybody/ has the right /not/ to be photographed in public (or private) without consenting to it. Look it up in your country's civil law (unless you are from North Korea or so).
And of course you are dead wrong. Otherwise no one could take a picture in public without getting releases from everyone that might be in the frame. Now, using someone's image for profit -- that's a different kettle o' fish.
But being in public means being in PUBLIC. You have no expectation of privacy. Whoa, I can even SEE YOU in public, and TELL ANYONE about it! Including your wife that you were with another woman! If you don't like it, wear a hood.
This was pitched to public safety long ago (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems maybe these companies might have sold Microsoft on the idea. Perhaps there were a whole bunch of data capture vans and no customer base. In the age of Google Earth and MSN Virtual Earth maybe spending money collecting these images are worthwhile. Or maybe just a waste of Microsoft's money.
Re:This is old news... kind of (Score:5, Insightful)
The Amazon thing was fairly public. I read about it on slashdot, and it's what I thought the submitter was actually talking about.
Re:Shh! Don't spoil the secret! (Score:5, Insightful)
They're still - but the vehicle still moves (Score:3, Insightful)
That said - another posted already pointed out that it could still be done. The question is: why on Earth would they? and: are they required to, by law? Answering the latter tends to answer the former when it comes to these matters.
Re:You're in public == you have no privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not fair. But then again, life isn't fair either.
"Fair" is the enemy of "free". To make things fair you must make other things unfree. That means bigger government and more laws. The purpose of government is to protect your life, liberty and property, not to protect you from the embarassment of being photographed in your pink boxers.
The power to prevent people from photographing your underwear, is the same power that can prevent paparazzi from photographing Britney's cooch. Is that the kind of power you want to give the government?
It would be nice if things were fair, but it's not the reality we live in, no matter how much you pretend to perceive it otherwise.
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're in public == you have no privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is old news... kind of (Score:2, Insightful)
What's innovative about the Microsoft implementation, above and beyond what we'd seen like 2 years ago [archive.org]? The absurd marquee Microsoft put around the view?
Microsoft might very well deliver a nice implementation, but there is nothing innovative about it (unless there's some bit that we haven't heard about).
Sidetopic: Microsoft Research is grossly overrated. The amount of "they have all the best {X}!" and "their budget is huge!" talk is nowhere near justified in the actual deliverables of this division.
just another example of technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably.
Re:Editing people out: trivial (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OH SNAP!!! It's the Vista Police.... (Score:2, Insightful)
FWIW, I've been running Mac OS X for the last eight months and this is the OS that Windows Vista is copying from. Your cluelessness strikes deep.
Why not? Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
There seems to be an assumption that they'd have to edit the people out. Why? You don't have a copyright on your face--anyone can photograph it and publish it--with a few limits: I can't use your image for commercial purposes without your permission, I can't invade your privacy (trespassing, super-telescopic lens, hidden camera, upskirt), etc. "Commercial purposes" sounds like a likely avenue for a lawsuit, but the phrase has been narrowly defined in the courts and the fair use exception to it has been interpreted broadly (news reporting, public interest, research, etc.). MS can also argue that their product is the photo of the street scene, not the image of the guy who happens to be standing in it. If they get Brad Pitt on one of the frames and start advertising that to draw people to a commercial web site, Brad's people will sue and probably win; if they get me in the background it won't advance their commercial purposes and it won't give me any ground to sue. In any case, MS surely has well-paid lawyers who've gone over all of this and decided the legal risks and costs are more than balanced by whatever MS hopes to gain out of the project.
All dressed up, no place to... hey! (Score:3, Insightful)
Evidently, you've not strolled around outside naked very much?
Re:Wisconsin, personal images and profit. (Score:2, Insightful)