German Photog Wants to Shoot Buildings Excluded From Street View 327
crf00 writes with this report excerpted from Blogoscoped: "'Spiegel reports that German photographer and IT consultant Jens Best wants to personally take snapshots of all those (German) buildings which people asked Google Street View to remove. He then wants to add those photos to Picasa, including GPS coordinates, and in turn re-connect them with Google Maps. Jens believes that for the internet 'we must apply the same rules as we do in the real world. Our right to take panoramic snapshots, for instance, or to take photographs in public spaces, both base laws which determine that one may photograph those things that are visible from public streets and places.' Jens says that for his belief in the right of photographing in public places, as last resort he's even willing to go to jail. Spiegel says Jens already found over 200 people who want to help out in this project and look for removed locations in Google Street View, as there's no official list of such places published by Google."
Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't seem to be a "The man is restricting our rights", more of a "people are nicely asking for some attempt at privacy", and this asshole (Jens Best) wants to say "FUCK YOU, I'm going to go against you because I can, even though you were nice enough to ask otherwise"
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you are the president or a singer or actor. No one cares.
Re:Erm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever had a stalker? Sometimes people do care. It can be kind of frightening. Especially for a young woman.
There's another side to this apart from the legal side. There's the community side, which is to say the common (? or not so much, any more, sadly) courtesy that makes the difference between a narcissist or an outright sociopath and someone who understands that sometimes, just because you can, doesn't trump "this person really doesn't want me to, is upset about it, and you know what, maybe I can have a bit of a heart and say okay".
This gentleman may have the law on his side, but I would be quite impressed if he took the stance of "I'm going to be a human being and take another person's feelings into account". Call me old-fashioned or idealistic, but I think that may just make the world a better place, in some small way.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd rather have a stalker that hangs out on Google Earth than standing in the bushes.
You got it (Score:2)
Mmm Zerth, how I love thee.
Oh wait... that is what you look like naked... nevermind.
Anyone attractive^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H human around I can stalk?
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because obviously one can't lead to the other. Not ever. The internet is entirely separate from real life, it's just like one big happy computer game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because obviously one can't lead to the other. Not ever. The internet is entirely separate from real life, it's just like one big happy computer game.
So what's the difference, then? I fail to see the additional risk Street View imposes in this situation. It wouldn't be that hard for a stalker to snap a picture just like Street View of whatever the stalker is looking at.
Your argument has a "think of the children" ring to it (except it'd be "stalked women" instead of children of course). Please clarify exactly what additional risk is incurred when Street View has taken a picture of a house where a stalkee lives. (Full disclosure: my house and RV hav
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh. And what happens to people's desire for a complete and detailed database of public places rather than one filled with holes "just because"? what happens to the feelings of photographers everywhere that wish to excercise their hobby, their profession, without harrassment from total strangers? why is it only one side that gets to screw over the others' feelings and sentiments? and why does it have to be the one that doesn't have the law on their side?
Ohh, that's right. Because it's the one you agree with.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
If people taking personal pictures were being harassed, I would be right with you on this, but this guy is just putting his sense of entitlement ahead of people's wishes. The law doesn't dictate what is right (see copyrights and patents)- sometimes discretion is needed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If people taking personal pictures were being harassed, I would be right with you on this, but this guy is just putting his sense of entitlement ahead of people's wishes. The law doesn't dictate what is right (see copyrights and patents)- sometimes discretion is needed.
Well, that's just it, isn't it. People's "wishes" play no part. I wish people like you didn't post, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
if _people_ opt out, i don't think that is an issue. if buildings start opting out, then we do have an issue.
the main issue here is the ability to take photos in public places and share them. we've read too many articles about problems with that, and i have been stopped by overzealous home owner for taking a photo of his housenumber (for openstreetmap purposes).
public place is a public place. if you want to shield yourself, build a fence that can not be seen through. some people do that, although it looks more like a prison to me.
i will argue for privacy, but i will also argue for freedom of photography and sharing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but if you already have a stalker, who already has your address as well as a detailed knowledge of what your street looks like including the buildings on either side of yours, preventing somebody from posting a picture of your building as seen from the public street is not really going to help you. I'm surprised that even seems like a comforting idea. It much more likely that your stalker would post said photo and you could use that to get a restraining order or press charges
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stalking is an issue, and is illegal almost everywhere. Stalking, however, has nothing to do with this. At all. You might as well say that we need to abolish the white pages, because it will allow a stalker to find out where you live. Have to get rid of GPS systems, because stalkers could use them to figure out how to get to you. Abolish digital cameras, because stalkers could use them to take pictures of you, your house, your car, etc.
You might as well have just slapped a "think of the chi
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
That I may not be important in your eyes doesn't mean I don't have a right to privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
That I may not be important in your eyes doesn't mean I don't have a right to privacy when not in public
Fixed!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in public there is such a thing as privacy.
There are restrictions to e.g. making photographs of people and publishing them without permission if that person is the subject of the photograph. There are restrictions on the requirements of producing ID documents. And so there are many more. Walking around a public street doesn't mean there is no such thing as privacy any more.
There is more to privacy than staying at home with the curtains drawn.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf [krages.com]
Even in public there is such a thing as privacy.
True. But it is extremely limited.
From the PDF:
Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside
their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you are the president or a singer or actor. No one cares.
Unless you have a teenage daughter like Elizabeth Smart. The notion that only celebrities are stalked is nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you have a teenage daughter like Elizabeth Smart. The notion that only celebrities are stalked is nonsense.
...So Elizabeth Smart was abducted with the help of Street View? (No.) So, if it were available, how would Street View have changed the abduction? Made it easier? In what way?
A lot of these anti-Street View arguments seem to come down to emotions rather than facts. (My house and RV are visible on Street View and have been for several years. I'm okay with it.)
Re:Erm... (Score:4, Insightful)
just like someone -could- stalk someone using Twitter, but lets face it, no one cares you aren't suddenly so important that someone will spend time looking at your house.
It's irrelevant if others cares or not.
I care, I own the place and I would prefer not to have an image of my home posted on the Internet without my permission. The problem in discussion is: do the fact that I care matters or not? (do I have a right to stop someone making public a photo of my home on the Internet?)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll raise another (this time, openly admitted as loaded): don't you see a bit paradoxical the fact tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell are you afraid of exactly? That in the modern age of information someone COULD find out almost anything about you, where you are at any given moment and every word you've ever said online? I wonder if you are young enough to think that wasn't al
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amusingly, you call him a gutter-slut, when everybody reading this thread has the strong impression it's the other way around. Just so you know, how you communicate determines people's opinion of you; that might explain why people react to you the way they do.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest not going out in public if this is your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what your point was, but man, that was beautiful.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If they cared about privacy, they wouldn't draw attention to themselves. By distinguishing themselves out of the other millions of people who have had their place of residence indexed on google street view, they have effectively induced the Streisand effect.
If their goal was to feel special then I say mission accomplished.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
surely locals have the right to request their homes not be broadcast to the entire world?
No, they don't, and that's why projects like this are needed. To remind people that fucking over photographers with paranoia and idiotic boogeymen is NOT a right, and shouldn't be in any society that calls itself Free.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
And it also reminds people that making your house, or secret military base, or corporate headquarters, appear as an unexplained blank spot in an otherwise comprehensive public database draws more attention to you than leaving it there in plain view would.
Re:Erm... (Score:4, Insightful)
surely locals have the right to request their homes not be broadcast to the entire world?
No, they don't, and that's why projects like this are needed. To remind people that fucking over photographers with paranoia and idiotic boogeymen is NOT a right, and shouldn't be in any society that calls itself Free.
Perhaps this photographer isn't going far enough. How about for every place that asked to have their imagery removed from Google Street View, register a domain name in their address (eg: 1234-Main-Street-Berlin-Germany.de) and have a 24x7 webcam pointed at the front of the house with live streaming video and the ability to browse back through interesting moments via motion sensor timestamps. After all, there's no right to privacy so why not go all the way and allow the entire world to watch someone's house all the time?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well I was skeptical, but then you extorted me to think of the vagina-creatures. I still didn't quite buy in - I was willing to let them all suffer until you tied it to my jealousy by making me think of the ones I own, like my wife and daughter, sister, mom, etc... nobody should see a vagina of mine! Fury! I now wholeheartedly support your plan to censor the net to stop any images. And here I was just going to get them curtains. /sarcasm
If weirdos like you were busy 24/7 watching boobies you wouldn't be agi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure really how I feel about that, surely locals have the right to request their homes not be broadcast to the entire world? Is there some greater public good I'm not considering?
Try telling that to all the reporters that gather outside your house after something happens in your neighborhood that attracts their attention...
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, you're right. Even without Google Street View I don't like the idea of someone 3000 miles away being able to just hop on a plane and be looking at my house in a couple of hours. Screw that, ban people from looking at my stuff if they're not from around here.
But...oh wait. That's stupid.
Public view is public view. It means anyone, on any given day, can see it. 1 person or 1000 people, what's the difference? Facades are meant to be seen by other people...they're designed for it. I don't have a problem with Google making the deision to be courteous to a few people here and there that don't want their home on there, but if too many people started making that request I hope and expect that they would say, you know, now it's starting to hurt the reason for having it in the first place, so sorry, we're doing away with that and now everything will be visible.
This isn't about Google's right to collect and show information, either. It's about my right to see it. If I can go there and see it, then I can have a friend with a smartphone show it to me live (iPhone Facetime, for instance) or take a photo and show it to me. If my friend can do it, why can't Google?
I might just as well say I don't want people to see my face when I go out in public either, but I'm not willing to wear a burqa, so you'll just have to look away to respect my nonexistent right to privacy. It's silliness. Something is either allowed or it's not. This is.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I'm going slippery-slope on this, and perhaps not thinking rationally, but isn't there value in the idea that some information requires an investment of energy to access. I'm thinking of sex offenders for some reason - there are many good reasons for having publically accessible lists but does that mean that they should be conveniently attached to Google-maps complete with photographs and all contact information? Our laws were constructed without any comprehension of the ease of access the modern day provides nor of the reach purportedly local info has. A lot of public info was deemed public as long as that selfsame public was going to march down to the courthouse, or whatever, and invest effort in their search – that effort almost served as a defence against low level abuse. Maybe I just need to reconsider the idea in its totality – either way you’ve given me something to think about so cheers for that.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can still take pictures of everything in public view, and so can Google. And Google is being nice and taking down their own photos if you ask them to. Maybe they got the photo when your son had his car up on blocks. Maybe they happened to photograph you just as you were doing something embarrassing. Maybe you're being stalked, and don't want someone to recognize your car in the driveway. Maybe you're just paranoid.
Either way, Google is being nice by taking down photographs upon request. This is not a legal requirement, or censorship, or anything like that. Raging against people who ask to have buildings excluded from a commercial map application seems... misplaced somehow.
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You familiar with your credit report? Do you know why it's not swapped around willy nilly among enterprising entrepreneurs? And why it doesn't store every single transaction you ever have made? It's not because of some really hard to get over problem or an immutable law of the universe. It's because society got together and thought that maybe having that kind of "permanent" record isn't a good thing. What makes you think that it's not probable that we'll come together and slap down Google, Microsoft, and pr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Erm... (Score:4, Informative)
This is exactly my thought. As far as I know, nobody is saying you CAN'T post photos of these homes.
No, not yet. However, the government is deliberating passing a law that does. This protest is presumably part of the current public debate, a protest against making even more laws regulating what you can and can not do in public.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Raging against people who ask to have buildings excluded from a commercial map application seems... misplaced somehow.
This is because you don't know the political context. Anti-Google rhetoric, especially concerning Street View, is commonplace right now in Germany, first and foremost by politicians of ruling and opposition parties, fueled by the publishers who don't like Google because they think Google News steals readers and ad revenue.
The issue is perceived as defining the border between those who appreciate the Internet making theoretical rights practical, like the right to freedom of speech and the right to take photo
They are being nice so they don't get forced (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, Google is being nice by taking down photographs upon request. This is not a legal requirement, or censorship, or anything like that.
Not yet.
Clearly a lot of people felt strongly enough that this sort of activity constituted some sort of invasion of privacy to make the effort to ask Google to take the photos down. Clearly Google felt there was enough of a risk (legal, PR or otherwise) in not doing so that they instituted a policy to comply with these requests, and they have introduced various other policies for related reasons.
If people like this Jens guy won't voluntarily respect that and want to deliberately upset all those other people just because they can legally do so today, then the law can always be changed tomorrow to fix that problem. This is the basic flaw in the whole "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place" argument: it based on law rather than on ethics, and ignores the fact that laws are supposed to change as the world does, including keeping up with the implications of new technologies and how people feel about them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If people like this Jens guy won't voluntarily respect that and want to deliberately upset all those other people just because they can legally do so today, then the law can always be changed tomorrow to fix that problem.
And how do you propose fixing that "problem?"
Only allowing the police to videotape & photograph in public?
Extending the DMCA to include otherwise legal pictures of property visible to the public?
This is the basic flaw in the whole "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place" argument: it based on law rather than on ethics
What the hell kind of argument is that?
How is it unethical to engage in Constitutionally protected rights?
Unpopular speech is exactly what the First Amendment is there to protect.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can still take pictures of everything in public view, and so can Google.
You're not up to speed. There is currently a public debate about whether or not there should be a law prohibiting Google from doing so. Several members of the government are involved in the debate, so it's not just hot air. The vice prime minister has come out on the "against pictures" side, though I don't recall if he's supporting an explicit law or not, as he's a libertarian and that would be strange, but then again in the realm of politics truth is stranger than fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
So consequently there is a right involved, whether or not he's an asshole, he does have a point.
That being the case, I still submit to you that he could choose to demonstrate his rights or make any number of other more important points without being an asshole.
I support his right to be an asshole, and I support my right to call him an asshole for doing it. I also support the right of other people to non-violently produce consequences for his being an asshole if they believe he's an asshole; for example, n
Re: (Score:2)
How does that work for me? I live on a private drive (which is marked private) that is rather long. Google has pictures of my place showing that they ignored my privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy never extended beyond the walls of your house. When my dad was on the PTA back in the 50's two teachers were fired because one (a man) was seen to leave his car parked overnight at the woman teacher's house. Yeah, it wasn't right, but it also sure as hell wasn't private.
Everyone really needs to take ownership of their publicity. You can't ignore it or you'll be in the same queue with the guy complaining about that first Google hit on his name that's a drunk & disorderly arrest back in '86.
The
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Build a fence or something.
But they could still photography my fence!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Erm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fences is sort of what this is about, I think; Google photographs from a camera which is higher up than the conventional "public view".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stiltwalkers of the world disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Go straighten out the local zoning ordinance that prevents me from building a fourteen foot wall all around the perimeter of my property and that might be a vaguely compelling argument. Until then perhaps you should maybe do a tiny bit of soul searching and see if you can stop arguing in bad faith, then you could spend a second to consider the difference between street view and your house being viewed from the street.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the decision to remove some photos a private agreement between Google and the people who ask for their photos to be removed?
Yup, and as such a matter concerning only Google and said person.
How is a third party, whether acting like an asshole or not, standing up for his own rights by interfering in that private agreement?
He's not interfering in that agreement as he's not bound by it, being neither a Google employee nor the party that requested the takedown in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Interfering: To enter into, or take a part in, the concerns of others; It's precisely because he's not part of the private agreement that he is interfering. The parties to the agreement do not want those images to appear on Google's maps, and yet he's deliberately trying to do just that, so he's meddling directly in their concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Because five years from now when someone sues that asshole for posting such photos, he doesn't want them to be able to argue that this sort of censorship is common practice. "Everyone does it that way" is a compelling argument in some courts.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and this asshole (Jens Best) wants to say "FUCK YOU, I'm going to go against you because I can,
It's a two way street. (pun? sorry.)
Living in glass houses, stones, all that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone paying attention to Jens Best is Jen Best's goal. Duh.
Privacy advocates vs Liberty advocates (Score:2)
This level of cognitive dissonance in the libertarians is going to be amusing.
After all who can say no to the photographers right to take pictures in a public place, but who can say no to someone's right to keep the front gardens off of a publicly accessible mapping system.
(to the rest of us, we know this guys just being an arsehole)
Re: (Score:2)
but who can say no to someone's right to keep the front gardens off of a publicly accessible mapping system.
You have that right. The means you use to do that is called a "fence".
Of course, Germany restricts tall fences in many places because they are considered ugly.
(to the rest of us, we know this guys just being an arsehole)
If standing up for democracy and freedom of speech makes someone an "arsehole", we need more people like that.
Re: (Score:2)
English version (Score:4, Informative)
It would be ironic if (Score:4, Interesting)
The manually taken photos were of higher quality, and more detail than the Google streetview ones. Then the request to remove from streetview........ could result in more detailed imagery of the area being posted to a place where more people will notice it
(Since streetview is so large, and has so many images.... a picture of an obscure place would probably not be noticed by many people, let alone get any attention or concern)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you say "The Streisand Effect" in German?
Rights fight (Score:2)
Never tried to shoot at the Pentagon, apparently (Score:5, Informative)
I can remember getting off the train at the Pentagon. I wanted to go upriver on foot to photograph the skyline of DC at night from across the river (don't ask me why -- ugly city). It didn't take too minutes before a Hummer came rolling out and a guy in a gun turret (gun pointed at me) told me to go away and not take any photos.
Like it or not, some really stupid rules -- and even just really stupid etiquette -- governs what you can and cannot photograph.
Re:Never tried to shoot at the Pentagon, apparentl (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but how far did you push back when you were challenged?
It's really pretty clear that a photographer has certain rights to shoot photos anyplace in public in the U.S.A. Government has often tried to intimidate photographers, under the guise that "national security" demands they cease, or alternately, lower-level security protests under false claims that some "policy" was violated.
The Amtrak photography incident comes to mind: http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/ [carlosmiller.com]
A good guide to your REAL photographer's rights can be found here: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]
Having a gun pointed at you is a pretty strong intimidation tactic, yet if you're confident you're in the right, you can still stick up for your rights in that situation. Some soldier driving out to meet you in a Hummer is probably NOT prepared to fire a weapon at a civilian photographer. WAY too many consequences for an action that extreme. So you *could* have let them arrest you and take your camera, rather than complying ... and you'd have a really GOOD chance of coming out the victor.
But let's face it.... that skyline photo probably wasn't something you wanted badly enough to fight for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a gun pointed at you is a pretty strong intimidation tactic [...] Some soldier driving out to meet you in a Hummer is probably NOT prepared to fire a weapon at a civilian photographer.
You'd bet your life on too many assumptions. You have no idea what are the rules of engagement. You have no idea what is there that they don't want you to take pictures of. You don't know if the soldier's trigger finger is itchy. And you don't know how the soldier perceives you - as a civilian photographer or as a te
Re: (Score:2)
That analogy doesn't work. Eric Scott had a gun. Doing anything with a gun while police are around is dangerous. A camera is not a gun. It doesn't threaten the life of police, and it probably won't get you killed, no matter what.
Re:Never tried to shoot at the Pentagon, apparentl (Score:4, Interesting)
A camera is not a gun. It doesn't threaten the life of police, and it probably won't get you killed, no matter what.
That "probably" is not good enough [timesonline.co.uk] - especially when dealing with soldiers. It only takes a misunderstanding. If a gun is pointed at you then a mechanical malfunction also can kill you. (That's why we are told to never point a gun at anything but intended targets, among other rules.)
Is a Street View private? (Score:3, Interesting)
Our right to take panoramic snapshots, for instance, or to take photographs in public spaces, both base laws which determine that one may photograph those things that are visible from public streets and places.
Is a photo of your lawn, outside of home, and garden a private affair? When people drive by your home do you chase them away like a barking dog? No (reply if you do). Then why should you shoo away the Google car?
OK. But does that give you the right to aggregate those photos, organize them by location, creating a photo map of the entire planet?
On the one hand: Location based services are increasingly being incorporated into photographic devices. It's only a matter of time before the planet is completely photo-mapped with location information. Attempts to prevent this are only by scaremongers who have an idealistic view of privacy.
On the other hand: People have a right to privacy and it's unreasonable for one corporation to destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Attempts to prevent this are only by scaremongers who have an idealistic view of privacy.
I'd wish you stop calling names, please? The reason person owning the place to refuse letting others use the image of it (in any way) is irrelevant... what is relevant is: does he have a right to do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Run of-the-mill attention whore (Score:2, Insightful)
That is what this guy basically is. There is a good change he will run foul of the law in addition
It isn't about legality... (Score:4, Insightful)
...it is about not being a douche bag.
Really, it isn't illegal and that isn't why Google removes them. He isn't going to get arrested so his willingness to have that done is irrelevant. What he is doing is being a a major asshole and justifying being proud of it under some "information wants to be free" meme.
My address, phone number, and a great deal of other information is certainly public knowledge - one can look it up on the internet (and I even use an abbreviated version of my real name so it isn't even that hard), yet I still wouldn't want all that attached to every post I made. There is a great deal of public information that we *all* would rather not telegraph in that well a concise and easy simple way to view. I'm willing to be this guy has a number of things about his life he considers private, is legally not, and would be royally pissed if people made a point of putting it on the internet. If someone walking down the raod asked politely to not be photographed few would call him a hero of anything if he then not only followed them taking all the photos he could but made sure that everyone singled them out to show what they would rather have private - no different here. I don't care about my picture being on Google Street View (well, other than the car was taking pictures when a police man was telling me to move my truck is parked in the road because someone up the street complained - we are on a dead end road. It's amusing as you can clearly tell I'm out on my front porch, the police car in the street, and the man in Blue talking to me - but then I find the thing more amusing than anything especially since I can pinpoint the exact time the car want by) and can't really see why anyone would care - but if they did it is called being a nice person to remove it.
If he wants to push a real cause go take photographs of military installations or secure places like nuclear power plants. But then there you are actually likely to have real consequences instead of just being a douche bag and making people mad. Plus it is places that are actually illegal to photograph, used to be legal to do so, and there is a great deal of debate on what should and should not be allowed. Peoples houses in mapping software? Not so much - as is he is simply trying to make himself feel better by doing something minor/worthless and rationalizing that it is somehow, in someway, actually edge and dangerous. Yea, go stick it to the man! Just wait until these people see their houses photographed on the Internet, that'll show !
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, it isn't illegal and that isn't why Google removes them
Germany is trying to make it illegal.
My address, phone number, and a great deal of other information is certainly public knowledge - one can look it up on the internet (and I even use an abbreviated version of my real name so it isn't even that hard), yet I still wouldn't want all that attached to every post I made.
How is that relevant? Google Streetview doesn't prevent you from being anonymous, nor does it identify you in any way. It gives pe
Re: (Score:2)
The way I understand this was that Google agrees to remove the photos not to remove your house, but to remove inconvenient pictures of people that have been accidentally filmed - say, if your window is wide open and if you are visible mostly naked behind it, they'd immediately remove the pic out of courtesy.
However, they don't bother to re-photo the house due to cost reasons; but this guy aims to fix this. And he is making quite a point with his actions; the point being that given the current rules, you do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wouldn't a person who tries to restrict and censor the right to take photos in public places be a "douche bag" ? /. articles who have been harassing photographers ?
you know, all those private security officers, policemen and other assholes we have been discussing in previous
Had to read the subject twice. (Score:2, Funny)
I support a citizen's right to shoot. (Score:3, Funny)
Germans are confused on privacy (Score:2)
German politicians seem to think that the best thing to do is to give each person total control over data about them... total control, except, of course where the German state is concerned. The German state collects and shares data about its citizens in a way that would be unacceptable in most other democratic nations. Germany is rapidly heading towards totalitarianism again.
Legal, yes. Worrying yes too. (Score:2)
In the USA you mig
nerds conflate ability and morality (Score:2)
The thing I hate most about nerds is the "we must because we can" philosophy. Here's something else I can do: follow Jens Best around all day, and his mother, and his offspring, with a wide angle lens, an infrared camera, a highly sensitive microphone and a wardriving kit. Oh, I'm sorry, is your 7-year-old daughter pissing in her bathroom a private affair? Well, if she's going to radiate infrared onto the street I don't see why she has any more right to privacy than the wall in front of it, bouncing all tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how do you draw the line between what's acceptable viewing/photography, and what's not. To me, a reasonable expectation of privacy would be in within an optically obscure enclosure. Say in your home, with curtains drawn, or window blinds closed. If someone had a radar imager, I'd be quite pissed: it's not reasonable to expect people to live in Faraday cages. But there's nothing reasonable in obsessing about street view pictures -- how do those invade my, or anyone else's, privacy? I just don't get it. So
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Google removed them in the first place I have no idea. Photographs taken of anything from the street must surely be allowed on the grounds that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy if your building is situated on a public right of way?
Freedom of the panorama (Score:5, Interesting)
In Germany, there's the so-called freedom of the panorama, which means, that you're allowed to take pictures of the panorama in public places, which includes houses etc. However, that freedom is limited to a natural perspective, so you may take take the picture while walking down the street, but you may not use a stepladder or step on a car roof to get a higher vantage point. It's a very simple to understand and convenient rule about private space. If you don't want to be photographed in your garden, make the wall high enough that people passing-by can't see over it. If someone peeks over that wall and takes pictures, he's invading your privacy.
So what the photographer proposes to do is probably perfectly legal. With the Google streetview cars the problem is, they take the pictures from higher up than regular eye level, thus the freedom of the panorama doesn't apply to them and they get in all kind of trouble. There's another company (can't remember which one) taking pictures of streets, but they have mounted the cameras directly on the car roof, probably to avoid the problems Google has.
All in all, Google is in this mess in Germany because they didn't bother to check local laws and believed American rules apply everywhere.
And freedom from respect for the individual (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's ignore the question of the legality of google streetview itself (as far as German law is concerned) for the moment.
This photographer doesn't just assert his right to take panoramic photos - he also asserts the right to completely override a person's wishes.
If someone registers NOT to have their home photographed, and he goes there taking photos and publishing them either way, is that the right way to deal with people?
I wonder - what are all the legal things I am perfectly in my right to do around him
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So ... if I wish that you would stop posting to slashdot, you would be morally bound to respect my wishes? After all, to do otherwise would be to "completely override a person's wishes" and I have registered my desire that you NOT post anymore and you'd explicitly post anyway? Is that "the right way to deal with people?"
You'd be overriding my wishes not to see your posts here, in my own home! Not just in public - IN MY OWN HOME - invading it with your unwanted posts! How outrageous of you!
Of course I have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were the OWNER of slashdot, I would likely follow your wishes if they were for me to stop posting.
But since you're not - I don't think you're in a place to 'demand' it (whether it would be within the law to demand so or not).
This is a place for discussion, and as such, anyone is invited.
Your house is on private ground - but obviously, it HAS to border on some public space through which to access it. In that public area, you may take whatever photos you like - but even on public ground, if a person li
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am an active (hobby) photographer, so I do know about the restrictions.
I DO also get pissed off with people trying to restrict me from taking photos. But if someone kindly asks me not to take a photo of their property, I will accept that.
This guy wants to take photos of the buildings of those whose place are pixelated in street view, ONLY because the respective owners or tenants DO NOT WANT it.
And that's plain just a transgression of common decency of one human being to another.
If the photographer is genu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you are a clueless twat.
They were asked to, and thought it might not be a good idea not to piss off potential customers by refusing. It's called civility, something a that seems to get forgotten around here with people blathering about their "rights".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I am on the street, I did not trow away any rights. I still should be expected to have certain privacy. e.g. NOT have pictures of me place online.
Actually you do. When you are in public, you give up some of your privacy rights. If you have a picture of you taken in a public place that will embarrass or harm you in some way, you have no legal recourse to avoid having that picture published as far as I know.
Repeat after me, "I have no expectation of privacy when in a public place.". It is an extremely simple principle, and I don't understand why people think that it doesn't apply to them.
There are laws against posting defamatory information of most