Your House Is About To Be Photographed 491
An anonymous reader writes "Photographers from a Canadian company are going house to house, shooting pictures of every house in America, in hopes of building a giant database that can be sold to banks, insurance companies, and appraisal firms. While this activity is legal (as long as the photographers don't trespass on private property to get their shots), there are obviously concerns about security and privacy. Considering that an individual can be detained and questioned by the FBI for photographing a bridge in this country, why should this Canadian company get a free pass? Tinfoil hat aside, something seems very, very fishy here." From the Arizona Star article about the photographing of Tucson: "'The [handout given to people who complain] made it sound like they're doing it for law enforcement, when in reality they're doing it for sales and marketing,' said [a City Council aide], who received several calls about the company."
Re:How very appropriate... (Score:2, Informative)
And very appropriate. Oh my gosh, someone's going to take a picture of my house. Now what?!
If you've ever bought a house, you know that for months (or longer) thereafter, people come by and snap pictures of your house. Why? Because appraisers take pictures of your house as "comparable" for the appraisal of some other house in the area. It's completely legal and nothing new. When I got my appraisal, it too included pictures of other recently sold houses in the neighborhood. Once I was working in my garage and an appraisal guy came up and actually asked if he could take a picture. I said, sure, and would he like me to close the garage door so he could get a better picture. He thanked me and that was that.
Seriously, this is the height of "So what!?!?!?"
Re:That reminds me (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That reminds me (Score:3, Informative)
In addition to property-release issues, you also need to think about copyright concerns vis-à-vis buildings if they were built after December 1, 1990. Before that, buildings did not have copyright protection and were thus, by definition, in the public domain. Shoot away.
In general, buildings erected after December 1, 1990 do not pose a big problem either. There is a "photographer's exception" to a building's copyright owner's rights that permits the photography of buildings. This gives a wide leeway to the definition of "building"; everything from gazebos to office towers are included. As long as the building is in a public place, or visible -- and photographable -- from a public place, there is no infringement of the building's copyright owner's rights. This rule includes private as well as public buildings. --American Society of Media Photography [asmp.org]
Re:Assuming they follow the rules (Score:1, Informative)
Perhaps if you have it fenced off, with the appropriate signage, you might make a case, but it wouldn't be much of one.
Unless your house is completely off the grid, there are public easements for the utility companies which could be exploited.
Zillow doesn't take pictures (Score:3, Informative)
Already Been Done (Score:2, Informative)
The site is: http://www.zoomap.co.il/ [zoomap.co.il] -- (sorry but it is very much in Hebrew).
Cook County already does this (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.cookcountyassessor.com/ccao/startres.h
You can just search by address and find a lot of the public information about private residences online, including photos in most cases (in all cases in the small sample I've tried).
I wonder how common this is with other regional governments?
Re:That reminds me (Score:4, Informative)
http://littlerock.craigslist.org/etc/271792246.ht
My home has an EULA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Assuming they follow the rules (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, not legally. Those easements are for the utility companies and only the utility companies. They do not confer any access rights to anyone else, including invaders from the great white north.
My easements are specific to a particular type of utility (power), so any other one would have to negotiate a new deal with me.
Free Pass (Score:3, Informative)
Who said anything about them getting a free pass?
The FBI detains people they have reasonable grounds to be suspicious of plotting an act of terrorism. If they suspect these people of plotting terrorism, they'll most likely detain them until their story can be confirmed too. There's absolutely no difference in treatment nor any kind of free pass being given.
Similarly, if the guy photographing the bridge contacted the local police department and said, "Hey, I'm going to be photographing such and such a bridge. If you want to run any background checks to verify I'm not a terrorist, go right ahead. No, you can't tell me not to do it - it's a legal right - you can only confirm I'm doing it for lawful reasons which I both am and am giving you an opportunity to check in advance." they would most likely have completely ignored him. I'm guessing, to simply avoid hassle, this company's going to have a prepared statement and will contact local PDs before going in to each area too.
In short, it's totally legal to do things like film a scene of a kidnapping but you're most likely going to get temporarily detained if you don't notify the police first. Film companies don't get a "free pass" either - they simply make sure the police are notified. The same goes for fears of terrorism and photographing potential targets and fears of burglary and and photographing homes.
Is it unfortunate that we're in a world where the gut reaction is to arrest first and ask questions later? Sure. But that should be addressed on its own merits rather than accusing people who're smart enough to recognize it sadly happens and thus take precautions of getting some kind of a free pass.
Re:That reminds me (Score:2, Informative)
Big Deal! Its already been done! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Enforcement != laws (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know if this is true for other stores or even other Walmarts, but the one I worked at, the loss prevention guys had the paperwork to prove that they had been deputized and the the authority and the right to detain someone on suspicion of shop lifting.
Law Enforcement and 911 (Score:2, Informative)
If this service is available, how long till Law Enforcement starts using it? 2 seconds after you can say "um...".
Of course it could be used in a good way or a bad way by law enforcement. A good way is that Fire and Police could tie it into the 911 database. When a call is sent to the police or fire dept from 911, besides the map they currently get, they could get a picture of the house in question. Up here in Alaska a few years back, an off duty Alaska State Trooper died because the emergency response couldn't find the house [state.ak.us]. Maybe a photo of the house would help, letting them know if they can or can't see it. Of course the report linked also mentions how information can be misused.
A discussion should be held in the public at least adequetely putting restrictions on this if necessary.Re:Enforcement != laws (Score:2, Informative)
I get to shoot them as trespassers. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Enforcement != laws (Score:3, Informative)
I know this because a couple weeks ago it happened to my old man. When they told him they would not let him leave without seeing a receipt, he asked if he was being accused of stealing (to clarify probable cause). They said no and he continued walking towards the door.
Anyway, that's the principle. This case was notable because the greeter then physically restrained my dad, who (being a little hot headed at times) pushed him off. Technically, the greeter's actions were assault, and my dad's were self defense, but at that point a security guard did make a citizen's arrest based on the half of the encounter he saw and Walmart charged him with assault. The judge has concurred with my dad's case if evidence can be provided that the greeter initiated the contact. Not very surprisingly, the prosecutor is suddenly having trouble locating the security video of the encounter.
Of course, my dad is now banned from entering Walmart property, which is something a business can do if you refuse to let them check your bags.
Re:That reminds me (Score:2, Informative)