Your House Is About To Be Photographed

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."

That reminds me

I have to put up my 10 meter wide 'FUCK YOU' banner.

Re:That reminds me

I have to put up my 10 meter wide 'FUCK YOU' banner.

not for nothing, how about putting up a banner with original text and a copyright notice? Then they can't distribute without permission... and you could set your price for distribution rights.

Re:That reminds me

Because there is a photographers exception to the portion of copyright that covers architecture. Photos taken from a public place of a building that is in public view don't require any kind of permission from the building's owner to be distributed or used.

Re:Enforcement != laws

"I don't take that kind of crap from rent-a-cops. They aren't peace officers. They have no more authority to tell me what to do then you would."

Be a little careful there....many places in fact use real off duty cops as their rent-a-cops. I know way back in the day when I was in school, and selling clothes at Dillard's...the plain cloths store cops were ALL real life LRPD. I was talking to one of them one slow night, and he explained the different guns he carried. The in-store gun with bullets that wouldn't go through the person...and the outdoor gun where if he had to shoot through a car...it would penetrate...etc.

And in some/many jurisdictions if I understand it...a cop really is never 'off' duty...so, even if working as a rent-a-cop...he has the exact same authority as if he were on direct police duty.

Re:That reminds me

But a litebrite might have the bomb squad [youtube.com] knocking on your door too.

Re:That reminds me

"The pigeon shit pattern on my vinyl siding represents a unique and brilliant modern art display. I used remote controlled pigeons for 46 years to create this exhibit. Please kindly remove the image of my house from your site or pay me $1,000(,000) a year to license its use.

Sincerely,

Joe Public.

Re:That reminds me

Mine will say, "Take off, eh, hoser!"

Re:That reminds me

But it may not necessarily be Canadians. As soon as I read the article, I was reminded of a post I saw on my local CL yesterday:

http://littlerock.craigslist.org/etc/271792246.htm l [craigslist.org]

I need pictures taken of several local residential and business locations. You must have transportation and a good quality DIGITAL camera.

I'm offering $1.00 per picture to be paid via Paypal.I expect that 4-6 will be needed for each location

respond to this ad

Now, that ad may not be from that Canadian company, but what's to stop said company from posting their own ads like this and getting the average American to do their "dirty" work for them?

Re:That reminds me

No, you should print on the banner:

"Your 30 day free trial of Photoshop has expired.
Please purchase the full version to remove this sign"

or

"Thank you for using a pirated version of Photoshop!"

Re:+7 Spit Take

Whom says that it can only be used in the objective case?

paranoid

What seems "very, very fishy?"

From my understanding, this has always been legal. Where we live, the size, configuration, value and tax record of your house is public information. So what would people do with this information that is so sinister?

Damned Foreigners

why should this Canadian company get a free pass?

I am outraged! Not only do I not want Canadians taking pictures of my house, I don't even want them seeing it! I say blindfold 'em at the borders....or better yet, gouge out their eyes! Can't just have people wandering around and looking at buildings that are in full view of a public road, it'll be anarchy!

Re:Damned Foreigners

I took the numbers off my house so they wouldn't be able to find it. I had to take the numbers off the neighbors' houses, too, so they couldn't just look for the house with no numbers.

It's just a prelude...

... to our forthcoming invasion. Do not be alarmed.

Actually we have invaded the US 47 times in the last 10 years, but nobody noticed.

Re:It's just a prelude...

Actually we have invaded the US 47 times in the last 10 years, but nobody noticed.

Anyone could miss Canada, all tucked away down there.

Re:It's just a prelude...

Actually we have invaded the US 47 times in the last 10 years, but nobody noticed.

We noticed, but chose to tolerate the presence of Celine Dion and Crash Test Dummies because we love your bacon so much.

Assuming they follow the rules

Very little of my house is visible from public access. However, driving a hundred yards or so down my driveway will offer you a nice, clean picture. The first time I see photos of my house which I know had to have been taken from my private property, can I have their asses thrown in jail for trespassing?

Re:Assuming they follow the rules

...there are public easements for the utility companies which could be exploited.

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.

Already been done

Ever hear of Zillow [zillow.com], the real estate "estimator"? They already have detailed pictures of homes in many major U.S. cities, from four different angles (taken by plane, natch). These aerial shots, of course, blow sat images away when it comes to level of detail.

How is this useful in any way?

I fail to see why pictures taken in legal way (I'm not talking about trespassing or even breaking-in to take interior pictures) is useful in any way? What bank or real estate agent would gain from picture taken from the street? More information is currently readily available - most people post detailed pictures of interior and exterior when they sell houses, this information only needs to be archived and categorized to get better result than this project can hope to archive.

More slashdot trolling

New York City did this in the 1920's, and still does it to this day. Several private firms also do this.

Anyone ever hear of propertyshark.com? [propertyshark.com].

Yeah, pictures of every building in Manhattan, and much of prime Brooklyn. They also have the tax photos from the 1970's.

Here comes the Transparent Society...

This is a tale of two cities. Cities of the near future, say ten or twenty years from now.

Barring something unforeseen, you are apt to live in one of these two places. Your only choice may be which.

--The Transparent Society [davidbrin.com]

Here come the future, barreling down from Canada in a three piece suit...

What Privacy does this violate?

I'm a proponent of strong privacy rights, but if they're just photographing the view of your house from the street, I fail to see how they're doing anything invasive of one's privacy, they're simply cataloging trivially publicly available information. Anyone can drive down the street and see the house. Presumably, on any given day, on most of these streets, hundreds or thousands of people drive down the street and see the house anyway.

Using something like a high-powered zoom lens to try to shoot pictures inside the house through the window, or trespassing on the property to better see the house, or driving a cherry picker down the street to take hard-to-get views over privacy fences and such would be different. But I don't see how the regular pedestrian view from the street can be considered "private." Presumably anybody with your address could get the same view by going there anytime. And to look it up in this company's database, presumably they've already got your address or could easily retrieve it from other sources. They're just changing the ease of access to this information, they aren't making any "private" information that wasn't previously accessible available, they're just changing the costs of accessing publicly available information.

If you care about people not obtaining information they can get from glancing at your house from the street, then you need a privacy fence or something to conceal that information.

It can and does happen, but isn't supposed to

A couple years ago in Seattle we had a photographer accosted by police because he was photographing a railroad bridge - they told him he needed permits etc. from the city and from Homeland Security or the FBI. When someone actually bothered to check with both federal agencies, their replies basically amounted to "no, that's silly".

What it sounds like (to me anyway) is a number of local agencies get overly zealous at times. I suspect part of the problem is there hasn't been much, if any, guidance provided to local law enforcement from the feds. Another part of the problem is these people, from the feds on down, seem to be flying the security ship by the seat of their pants, and worrying about what's actually legal/illegal later - the old "Shoot 'em all, and let God sort 'em out" philosophy.

boring job

"Okay Joe, here we go, 1135 MegaComplex Way. Unit 134, Los Angeles, CA 90202."

"Number 134?"

"Yeah"

"It's just a door with a number?"

"Yeah like the last 133 units we've shot dumbass"

*Click*

"Okay got it"

Re:Canadians Do Know We Are Armed, Right?

"I pity the poor defenseless Canadians." Oh, don't worry about us. We'll be hiring local photographers. Rest assured, those are fellow Americans you'll be shooting, as per usual.

I have a proxy house

I built a facade exterior house outside my actual house with a tinfoil lining. The pretense house has a different address on its mailbox and I use MAT (mailbox address translation) to forward all mail to my real house. I keep all the windows and doors on the proxy house closed. This combined with a good cinder block firewall keeps me safe and from broadcasting my real address TO THE WORLD!

Don't know where it came first...

Don't know where it came first, but here in Finland a company called Igglo [igglo.fi] photographed every house here a couple of years ago. There are now photos of every building online. And I have to admit, that if your buying or renting something it sure is a very nice service. But I understand the privacy issues. There was some protest over here especially about photographic single-family houses. And I actually saw these guys photographing the house I live in. My first impression about them was to call the police. Kind of funny later on when I figured who they were.

Anonymity Is Doomed Get Over It

First of all the bit about them getting a free pass is just absurd, despite what the TSA does the idea of these precautions is to catch terrorists not make sure everyone is annoyed equally.

Secondly I think it is unfortunate that the distinction between privacy and anonymity is so often blurred. This technology does not infringe on your privacy, the front of your house is visible to any passerby and has undoubtedly been published in some picture on the web or a newspaper already. Nothing that was not previously visible to complete strangers has been revealed. All that has changed is that it is now easy for people to find that information and make use of it. In other words your anonymity has been reduced though your privacy has not been affected (they aren't always so clearly cut but here it is).

Now I find it pretty ironic that the same vocal slashdot lobby that is so strongly against any sort of free speech restriction or data lockdown technology seem to think that we can and should do something to stop the loss of (physical) anonymity. Frankly the two goals are fundamentally incompatible.

As it gets easier and easier for people to post information to the web they will do it. Today we have camera phones, tomorrow we will have glasses that record video, recognize faces and code geographic information into that data. Either you pass draconian laws that prevent people from posting the snapshots/movies online or that data will eventually be there, and sooner or later better search and geographic information will make it possible for search to organize it in ways that let people determine what city your in on a given day (face recognition on photos taken that day) and certainly they will be able to track down a picture of your house.

This sort of loss of anonymity is inevitable if we don't want to give up our freedom. It isn't all bad, after all this is the way people lived in small towns for most of history. But so long as we keep whining about it rather than facing up to the fact we make sure that it will be lost in the worst possible ways, i.e., useful features that expose the information to us will be stopped but governments and corporations will be able to use it as they wish. What we need to be doing is making sure that anonymity is lost equally, i.e., we don't get situations where the ghetto is filled with cameras but the suburbs are not (it is too easy to demonize 'other' people when the unblinking eye isn't trained at 'your kind'), and beefing up genuine privacy protections in the face of this loss of anonymity.

Cook County already does this

The Cook County Assessors office already photographs homes and makes the photographs available online.

http://www.cookcountyassessor.com/ccao/startres.ht ml [cookcountyassessor.com]

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?

Oh noes, a conspearasee!

Tinfoil hat aside, something seems very, very fishy here.

Excuse me while I get a little OT and take this statement a little personally (and probably get modded appropriately), but this is a point I think us Canadians need to start emphasizing more regularly:

As a Canadian-born citizen, I'd have to agree with you. There is definitely something very wrong with Canadians being able to take pictures of your public property, while you are not. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the tone of the above statement. But if anything, this should help open your eyes to the problem America has with overreacting to everything. In my opinion (and an opinion also shared with a lot of other non-Americans) a lot of American citizens don't seem to realize the problem isn't with other countries, it's with your country. You need to lighten up, as a nation.

My home has an EULA

... by taking a picture of my home, you agree to all of the terms and conditions outlined in my home's EULA. Those terms include a 99.99% revenue share on any income related to use of said picture...

Time to start selling...

Ad Space. I'm hardly home, so I don't care that much. But I'll start selling parts of the exterior wall for ad-space. They can photograph all they want, I don't care.

Free Pass

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?

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.

Oh Crap!

This article just made me realize that my neighbors can see the front of my house and even know when I leave and come back.

Oh, my privacy! We need to outlaw neighbors...

On the other hand, when I forget to close my garage door, one of the neighbors will probably keep an eye on the place to make sure no one walks off with stuff, and may even walk over and close it for me. Nice thing about having neighbors where you know their names...

A9 did this for businessesyears ago...

This is really no big deal. Amazon had trucks driving around with cameras taking pictures of businesses for A9 a while ago. There are services for real estate agents to take pictures of houses, as well as it being common practice for appraisers. Google has sat images, local.live has aerial shots, many MLS services have "neighbor photos" sections with pictures of surrounding homes. Your house has probably been photographed before, and it'll probably happen again. I do like the idea of a banner though ;)

Not Every House

To get close enough to photograph one of my houses would take at least a 20 minute drive in a 4x4, across *private* property. If they try that, i get to shoot them as trespassers.

I also agree this is fishy. While i do realize its legal to stand in the street and take pictures of anything you can see, including people's private belongings, perhaps this legalty should be reconsidered. Whatever happened to 'expectations of reasonable privacy in public'?

Local government beat them to it

My county government already does this. Photos from the road are included on the web page for each property in the online database. Anybody can access the county site and find out the size, tax value, date of last zale, zoning info, etc. The database is searchable by name or address. There is no need for a corporation to sell this info when it is already a matter of public record.

Royalties?

Hey, I think I own some of the design elements of my house. I don't see how they have the right to sell images of this without paying me a royalty. So, what about writing any of these services a short note letting them know that I don't consent to them using images of my house for their for-profit business. Well, actually, on second thought, I might consent if they're willing to pay me a royalty I consider sufficient. Okay, a man's home ain't his castle any more, but a man's design must still be copyrighted if Micky Mouse is!