Would You Blur Your House on Every Map App? (popsci.com) 128
If you'd like to deter "digital voyeurs," Popular Science points out that you can ask the map apps from Google, Apple, and Microsoft "to draw a veil of privacy across your property.
"You'd be in good company too: Apple CEO Tim Cook had his home blurred from mapping apps after issues with a stalker." There is something to bear in mind before you do this, though: you may not be able to reverse the process. The blur could be there for good. This is the case for Google Maps, and while Apple and Microsoft don't specify whether blurs on their services are permanent, they may follow the same protocol or decide to do so in the future.
The case for blurring? "Having strangers from all over the world stare at your home isn't necessarily something you want to happen — but it can be done in seconds on the mapping apps we all carry around on our phones." ("Stop people from peering at your place," suggests the article's subtitle.)
But is there also a case against demanding platforms blur what's essentially just the exterior of a building? Where's the boundary where we're honoring the wishes of the privacy-conscious — and does the public ever have a right to see? Share your own thoughts in the comments.
And would you blur your house on every map app?
(Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article...)
"You'd be in good company too: Apple CEO Tim Cook had his home blurred from mapping apps after issues with a stalker." There is something to bear in mind before you do this, though: you may not be able to reverse the process. The blur could be there for good. This is the case for Google Maps, and while Apple and Microsoft don't specify whether blurs on their services are permanent, they may follow the same protocol or decide to do so in the future.
The case for blurring? "Having strangers from all over the world stare at your home isn't necessarily something you want to happen — but it can be done in seconds on the mapping apps we all carry around on our phones." ("Stop people from peering at your place," suggests the article's subtitle.)
But is there also a case against demanding platforms blur what's essentially just the exterior of a building? Where's the boundary where we're honoring the wishes of the privacy-conscious — and does the public ever have a right to see? Share your own thoughts in the comments.
And would you blur your house on every map app?
(Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article...)
Why bother? (Score:2)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
i live under a roof that hides me. i never slide it open. why would i need to blur it?
Re: (Score:2)
I on the other hand prance around in my front yard naked, and if you happen to see me, ... well don't come crying to me to pay your therapy bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh!? Are you that ugly?
I'm on my way, I need to see that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why bother? (Score:2)
Google has IR satellite imagery?
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
"i live under a roof that hides me. i never slide it open. why would i need to blur it?"
Cars in the drive way. Now they know what you drive. Maybe even the LP (Google Maps blurs that NOW...)
They know the layout of your fenced yard.
Frankly, it's kind of creepy. It also feeds in to "crime as entertainment" websites that completely creeped me out.
One such site thinks it helps solve crime -- but what it does is showcase pics of houses that are crime scenes and folks then start figuring out who lives there (if it hasn't been in the press already).
I had to reach out to the admin of one such site asking them to remove my home, address, pics of my family cars, etc. Because my daughter (10 years old) had been kidnapped out of her bed and it made the news. Sorry, my family's misery should not be available for your entertainment in pretendinng to be a "sleuth".
When it comes down to it, I far more trust the police than web-site-scooby-dos who think things are "fishy".
(daughter recovered 12 hours later -- alive but very much hurt -- it's been 10 years and the damage done is still affecting her).
Re: (Score:3)
Blurring items in a picture/view just increases the curiosity about the items.
Those requesting blurring haven't heard about the Streisand Effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was viewing satellite maps of a city i was visiting, and noticed a blurred area (stuck out like a sore thumb).
I went to check what it was, and turns out it was a famous government building so there were thousands of other pictures of it online anyway.
Had it not been blurred i probably would have ignored it, as it wasn't one of the places i was planning to visit.
Re: (Score:2)
The Streisand effect is very demanding on the attention span of the general public.
They will do it for Barbara Streisand, but not for John and Jane Doe. And certainly not for 1 million Doe's
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they say it cannot be undone! What happens if you sell your house? Does it affect its value? Can the buyer sue you for hidden defects when he finds out his new house is blurred and doesn't like it because like you said, it might attract attention?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dont get why this is useful even if your being stalked.
If they are a cyber stalker and never physically visit your house, then them having a picture of your house is harmless.
If they physically visit your house, then they can take a picture of it themselves anyway.
It would be different if it was real time video of your house. Or even a picture which was updated daily.
But a once off picture from the street seems harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this person otherwise *was* stalking you in public already, and simply lacked your physical address, then blurring your house in this way has just considerably complicated your life.
There are quite a few quandaries about this.
As you point out, if your house is the only house on the street that is blurred, that attracts attention. People could cruise street view looking for blurred houses, probably not what the people blurring their house is looking for.
Do they check property ownership and reliable authentication of the requester before blurring? Can you blur other people's houses as a lark? Can you create "blur bots"?
Can people defeat blurred houses by posting their own image of the ho
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this, blurred areas on maps are interesting and make people curious what's there. It's not hard to go there in person and inspect the area, possibly fly a drone over and see what they're hiding.
Depends (Score:2)
I would only blur images of people or possibly vehicles at my property.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need to (Score:5, Interesting)
Goggle's vans never drive into gated communities
Eye in the sky (Score:2)
Siriusly or psychobabble?
Re: Eye in the sky (Score:2)
Really, they don't. Goggle's street view doesn't have any photos of anything inside of my neighborhood. The entire neighborhood, streets and all, is private property.
Re: Eye in the sky (Score:2)
I don't think the gate really stops them. In fact, for the first two years while this neighborhood was being built, the gates were open during the daylight hours so that the construction workers had unfettered access. Yet during that time, Google never drove its vans in. My guess is that they didn't want to ignore the "no trespassing" signs.
Salespeople and missionaries like to ignore them occasionally, and when they do, I tell them that they're breaking the law, and escort them out of the neighborhood. It w
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment of the USA Constitution recognizes the rights of religious groups and person to exercise their missionary activities. The First Amendment also recognizes the right of politicians and political groups to "speak freely" even over your phone. Protected political and religious speech is protected speech and quite different from sales-speech.
It is amazing what USA citizen don't know about their country and its founding
Re: (Score:2)
Protected political and religious speech is protected speech and quite different from sales-speech.
It's /exactly/ sales-speech.
Re: Eye in the sky (Score:2)
Colloquially perhaps, but legally commercial speech, religious speech, and political speech are treated differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Missionaries don't have unfettered 1st amendment rights on private property that isn't being used as a public forum. If the entire neighborhood is private property and they ignored no trespassing/no soliciting signs to enter, then they can be ejected without violating their rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Missionaries don't have unfettered 1st amendment rights on private property that isn't being used as a public forum. If the entire neighborhood is private property and they ignored no trespassing/no soliciting signs to enter, then they can be ejected without violating their rights.
I was a full-time missionary for two years. I received an official preaching permit. My training also stressed the importance of respecting "no soliciting" type signs. Missionaries are looking to convert people to their faith. If a missionary knocks on a door despite a "no soliciting" sign, that already creates an annoyance and severely lowers the probability of a convert. By the same token, I was instructed not to engage in "Bible-bashing" or "Bible thumping" contests.
On a side note, if you invite missio
Re: Eye in the sky (Score:2)
Dude, it's private property. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to trespass. Besides, legally speaking, missionaries are door to door solicitors. "No soliciting" applies to them just the same as a salesman. If they want to preach their shit, they can do it outside the gates, on public property, where they have the right to do so.
Re: Eye in the sky (Score:2)
That doesn't seem entirely clear. At least in some jurisdictions solicitation may be defined as requesting an exchange of something of value. Someone who just wants to talk to you, for whatever reason, isn't doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't seem entirely clear. At least in some jurisdictions solicitation may be defined as requesting an exchange of something of value. Someone who just wants to talk to you, for whatever reason, isn't doing that.
As a former missionary, I was instructed to respect "No soliciting" signs. As a missionary, my purpose was to "bring souls unto Christ through the ordinance of baptism". If you knock on a door with "no soliciting", odds are extremely low of obtaining a convert and you may poison the individual against any possible future conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do. Here's one driving through a gate in a Savannah, GA:
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9349174,-81.0499097,3a,75y,124.59h,73.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVvpL0ODO_5CQDMqwZQnRpg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Re: (Score:2)
Digital privileges only for the rich (Score:4, Funny)
As if I can ask Google/Apple to blur my trailer...
We should be crowdfunding deblurring projects unless Tim promises to gives us common people the same privileges.
Re: (Score:3)
As if I can ask Google/Apple to blur my trailer...
The point of TFA is that you can.
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly can ask Google. I know because I did not long after they started Street View, and my house has been blurred ever since.
It seems to be more tricky with Apple because they don't have a web version of Apple Maps. I sent an email to their privacy contact address (privacy@apple.com).
Re: Digital privileges only for the rich (Score:2)
Well, it's only for protection against commoners anyway. If anyone important wants to have a deblurred photo of your home, of course they can have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother (Score:2)
Anybody strolling by my house can get an eyeful. Not to mention that my online profile is probably an open book to anybody with a smidgeon of skills. I don't think that blurring my house on some map app is going to make any difference.
Re: Why bother (Score:2)
Agree.
What do I care if someone sees the exterior of my house? I mean - jezzz - every car that drives down my street sees my house. What do I care if some guy in China looks at it?
Re: (Score:2)
Please become familiar with this theory: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes... [knowyourmeme.com]
Every single person has a very low probability of being a psychopath. Every single person walking by your home has this probability. You and me, and we all are under a constant threat of severely mentally ill psychopaths that will threaten, maim, torture and kill people on every random Tuesday just because they are bored or they thought some voice in their head told them to. There is nothing you can do to stop them short of second ame
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that if your theory has merit, then blurring out one's home is going to make it more of a target, not less, because it'll be unusual.
As for the theory itself, all risks have to be put in perspective. Anything below a certain threshold is inefficient to concern oneself about. Random internet stalkers probably fall into that category for most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Please become familiar with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Taking precautions that hinder burglars, psychopaths and other dangerous people from getting too much information about your whereabouts is paranoia.
Of course.
It's free, it's stupidly simple and it has literally zero downsides for me. The actual effect may vary or may be low, but it is not zero, but my costs and efforts to prevent it are much closer to zero than that.
Risk = probability of an event (very low, but not zero) * severity of the event (very high, most states calculate one human life as a 5-10 mil
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is paranoia. You completely ignore real upsides to having your house visible, and focus on the incredibly small possibility of being robbed or murder simply because someone saw a picture of your house.
So what are the upsides? About 20 years ago I needed some tree work done on a large tree in front of my house. To get an estimate, every tree service charged around $25 to come look at it (refunded if you actually get the work done). Last year I needed more work done - three different tree services
Re: Why bother (Score:2)
But all those people are exposed to all the other houses too.
More psychos might see my house, but they are also seeing a lot more other targets.
I like my odds.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody strolling by my house can get an eyeful.
If you don't like seeing me naked, don't look in my window.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if it was allowed to have a nice high wall or hedge in front of your house, to provide some privacy. In the UK that's now allowed by law, the maximum height at the front is 1m. You can kinda get round it by planting non-hedge tall plants, but it's a hassle.
Besides which, having massive windows turns out to be not so good for the environment and maintaining a pleasant temperature indoors. Japanese homes reduce the heating effect by using overhangs to create shade, but that's rare in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I never knew this. That seems very restrictive. So if you are on a very busy street and want some privacy and to block out road noise you are just out of luck?
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. Triple glazed windows are the best you can do really. A lot of people have blinds and never open them, or net curtains inside the proper curtains just for privacy. It's really stupid.
Condos? Apartments? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you do this for your condo? Or Co-opt?
Can a landlord do it for their apartment? Can a tennant?
Is this right for the rich only?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really good question [youtube.com].
They stand out like a sore thumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets just blur the internet (Score:2)
Let's just make the whole internet blurry because some vague scary person might do something or another.
Meanwhile you are being watched, tracked, marketed, etc.. Google knows you more than your mom does.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just make the whole internet blurry
Someone famously beat you to that idea:
https://www.ex-parrot.com/pete... [ex-parrot.com]
See the blurry-net example in the middle of the page!
Streisand effect renders it counterproductive (Score:5, Interesting)
We're in a world where everyone has access to any number of databases and they're regularly copied by third parties. The train left the station on keeping information off of those public records. The best practice is to keep your information boring and if the thing interesting is your name, to obfuscate that detail.
Re: (Score:2)
that's why privacy focused companies and privacy laws are being abandoned left and right
oh wait...
Side effect (Score:2)
Google told me it was impossible to de-blur (Score:2)
I blur my home and when I wanted to sell it, Google told me it was impossible to de-blur it
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I blur my home and when I wanted to sell it, Google told me it was impossible to de-blur it
That's when you sell the unblurred version of the house as an NFT and profit twice!
Re: (Score:2)
I blur my home and when I wanted to sell it, Google told me it was impossible to de-blur it
That's when you sell the unblurred version of the house as an NFT and profit twice!
This guy gets it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yep. I have done this while looking at houses and saw multiple previous listings. was interesting to see the changes each successive occupant had made.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, even if it's not on public sites like Zillow, it's probably there on MLS, and it is dead easy to get a real estate license and get on there.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax history, owner, purchase price, down payment %, liens, square footage, lot size and several other details of a property are all public records.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is definitely frustrating for me as a homebuyer. Sometimes the MLS photos don't give the best view (true curb appeal).
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was also surprised to see how close his neighbours actually are to his own house.
I thought he lived in some Mr.Burns-style mansion with a huge lot surrounding it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not a house so big you have rooms you never use, but at least a lot bigger than having your neighbours' windows right next to yours. I've seen lots eight times bigger in our small town of 10K people, and those people are not even millionaires.
Dear Google, please hide 12 Grimmauld Place (Score:2)
Thank you,
Sirius Black
How would blurring stop a stalker? (Score:3)
No, it's public info (Score:5, Informative)
You can't accept people from taking pictures in front of your house and that's not illegal either so why would posting those images on the internet be wrong. I say no to map blur
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is clearly a difference between an individual taking a photograph for their private collection that incidentally includes your home, and a megacorporation exploiting it for profit by making it easily searchable and viewable from anywhere in the world by anyone.
I'm amazed that people still don't see this. The UK introduced the Data Protection Act back in 1984, and the text recognized that computer databases were very different to say a paper archive of records in a filing cabinet somewhere.
Scew the public (Score:2)
and does the public ever have a right to see?
Sure, if they're willing to walk down the street and take a gander. But if I'm given the option of blurring my house on Google Maps, and decide to do so, then the public can take a hike. Literally. Neither I nor Google "owes" them a photo of my house.
I am not that bothered (Score:2)
People in my area know my area, its kind of a small town outside a mid sized city, we are in a development that's been around since 1992 (we havent been here that long)
Google street view up until recently showed my house from 2 owners ago (like 2009), and the update ... showed a car I owned in the driveway, but got rid of in late 2020. Hell, my parents house, which is at the end of a "getting near country" dead end road shows my dad's Dodge Dakota ... which burned to the ground in 2011
Privacy is a historical anomaly (Score:2)
In a village, multiple generations lived in one room and neighbors could easily eavesdrop on everything going on. And if you were rich the servants gossiped. Modern technology enables something pretty much like it and banning it would tremendously set us back on other wonderful things it does for us. We need to stop chasing the temporary state of suburban single homes in the mid 20th century and think of how we want to live in our new circumstances. For example:
Re: (Score:2)
jebus
large white spot on SV: (Score:2)
Too many people in Germany requesting to have their house blurred is how this [bigthink.com] happened.
Street view essentially pulled out of Germany, citing excessive costs in dealing with all the requests individually.
Perhaps making a point rather, but who knows...
Don't look at me! How dare you! (Score:2)
Says man standing in public.
If you don't want your house seen from the street, then put a 12ft wall around your property. Blurring maps photos because someone can see the facade you put up (presumably to keep up appearances when other people look at your property), is just utterly stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
there, fixed that for ya
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is someone going to misuse a picture of my house taken 4-5 years ago? I'm just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
E.g. knowing you have a pond, with expensive Koi. ...
Then he finds your facebook profile and sees you just have posted some holiday picture from thousands of miles away. So he knows you are no at home, and steals your Koi collection.
Or you have an expensive tree
If it was a livestream? Sure. Otherwise, no. (Score:2)
It's not like the map pics are anything close to real time. Often the images are years old, and a single snapshot of what my place happened to look like to someone who was in the area at the time is often not going to be very useful.
I get blurring faces and license plates... but blurring the entire house unnecessarily increases curiosity about the address for people who might not have been necessarily looking for that address in particular, and this has the potential to easily draw unwanted attention th
Hell yes! (Score:2)
Go forbid that anyone steal my invention of erecting four walls and a roof to keep the weather at bay. Those are transparent walls, by the way, so people can see right through them.
Treating symptoms (Score:2)
Wow. They got so distracted by the thought of people looking at the photograph, that they completely forgot that anyone on the street is able to create that photograph.
If your house is visible, it's visible. Telling middlemen to pretend it's not visible, doesn't really change that.
No, I would not (Score:2)
Why bother? I seriously doubt that anyone is going to target my nondescript home for anything through a Google search. And if they did, blurring it on Google wouldn't help.
Seriously, what's the point? If some dude from Brisbane or Munich wants to look at my home on Google Maps (or any other service), I've got no problem with that.
None of these houses should be blurred. (Score:2)
If you can see it from the street it should be in the maps.
Good Company? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if Patrick Stewart blurs his house, then you're in good company. Or Ian McKellan. Or literally anyone cool who isn't a corporate shitlord.
Public figures have different rules. (Score:2)
Unlike most of us, who live in rather obscurity no matter what our personal ego thinks about us, and our very clever social media post that got a bunch of likes, we are rather uninteresting in the grand scheme of things, and despite what Cable news says, your political stance and flags are not making a target for the next uprising, and you are not being a brave warrior for showing them. If people disagree with your views, they will mostly just figure you are an Idiot Asshole and go on. Or if they agree with
What happens when you sell a blurred house? (Score:2)
I wonder how Google handles it if you have your house "blurred" and then sell it. Can the new owner have it unblurred? How do they prove they are the owner. What if it sells multiple times? What if a blurred property is demolished and a new structure is built? Can I claim ownership and have someone else's property blurred? Does being blurred affect property value, and if so, how?
That's a laughable argument (Score:2)
Hate to break it to Mr. Cook. But if his home is visible to the public and a stalker knows his address, said stalker can
Blurring isn't the service you want (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
And all phones and other cameras should take blurred photos by default. If you want an blurred photo of someone or their property, you go get them to sign a consent form.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same.
Though it was funny to find one that was blurred out from all angles except one.
Oh, and that same house had photos of it all over the Internet trying to sell it, including the interior, rear garden and frontage, all attached to its address.
Don't understand what you achieve by removing it (people's face and car registrations, okay, I can kind of see it, but even then it's a bit pointless).
It's like some neighbours who once complained that I had a camera overlooking my property and the road outside.
1) It