March 25th, 2009
London Google Street View
Last week Google’s street view came to London and oh Lordy did the English flip out. I can’t count the number of conversations where I’ve had to explain to Londoners that London is not the first city to get street view and that, no it’s not only for pedophiles, perverts and nosey parkers.
The thing that really gets me in these conversations is that London is the most surveilled city in the world. There are more than 500,000 cameras in the city. People aren’t getting mad because it’s one more camera, there apparently getting mad because it’s a camera they have access to.
The way I look at it, there are three options for cameras in public:
- Cameras for None. No one can take video or photos of a public area. This is practically impossible.
- Cameras for Some. Limiting camera access to a trusted few is the worst option. People with power and grudges, can and do abuse their access with little to no oversight.
- Cameras for All. This is the best option — if there are going to be surveillance cameras in public areas, then the footage should be available to the public.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Bottom line, Google’s London Street View is awesome.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I’m sorry, but your view is rather silly, and if GSV were to come to my city, I’d be writing angry letters as well.
Cameras for all the best option? I mean, seriously, picture that in your head for just a moment and tell me you really want a global panopticon. Orwell could not have dreamt up such a nightmare. No, neither none nor all is feasible or desirable.
“Cameras for some,” of course, is not an option as you paint it to be, it’s a range of options. Whether it’s good or bad depends on what cameras, and moreso it depends on what “some.” Should the police be allowed to monitor our every move? Of course not. Should I be allowed to monitor when my neighbour leaves and enters his house? Hell, no. Should you be able to watch people on the other side of the world hanging out of a garbage container? Thrice no. But a tourist should be able to take home a memento.
It’s difficult to define precise rules for this thing, but usually people have a rough idea of what’s decent, and it all works out to an acceptable degree. You don’t photograph two people arguing in the streets, for example, because that’s none of your business. London has way too many cameras, that much is true, but that is no excuse to expose the whole city and everyone who happens to be unlucky enough to be on the streets when the google car drives by to the rest of the world.
Not everything is your business. Not everything is anyone’s business. I usually like your comic; it is often thoughtful, but this one is pure demagogy.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Brin’s “Transparent Society”, light over darkness any time, but GSV isn’t CCTV, its a static snapshot, CCTV that has been recorded permanently, and with no signs/warnings that its taking place where I am.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:11 am
It just allows burglars and other predators to check out eligible houses from the comfort of their own living room, for free without any major hassle. Add to that the Google satellite view that shows your back garden (and how to get into it) and maybe also whether you have children or not (toys etc).
It’s maybe well meant, but the ’side effects’ are very sinister.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:26 am
“Cameras for All” *IS* the *WORST* option, because it is like in small village where everybody is behind his curtains to see what others are doing, it is an open gate to denunciation and denouncement, like in the times of MacCartism or during the collaboration of the Vichy gov in France. Some people will pass all their day following people with the cameras and see if they date other woman then their wife etc…
Google Street View is OK because it is just an instant snapshot, and the compromising situations will be removed quickly.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I had the same thought when i first heard the ‘controversy’ – London is a VERY well monitored city, so much so that some band had bothered to collect footage and make a music video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2iuZMEEs_A). The Google street view has been in the USA and couple other places (paris, tokyo) for a few years now, so i’m shocked that Londoners have such a hard time accepting Street View.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
to Anonymous Coward:
Should the police be allowed to monitor our every move? Of course not.
Actually, in a public street, yes, they should and I hope do for some people!
Should I be allowed to monitor when my neighbour leaves and enters his house? Hell, no.
Actually again, yes, and maybe you should, then maybe you might notice the burgler breaking in while he’s out!
Should you be able to watch people on the other side of the world hanging out of a garbage container? Thrice no.
As long as it’s in a public space, I don’t see why not! I can watch a webcam anywhere in the world if someone has set one up there, why shouldn’t I be able to see a snapshot of a public space? If they are indivuals photos, geotagged and added to google earth for the world to see, thats fine, but if google takes them and does essentially the same thing that isn’t?
As long as they stick to public roads there should be no issues, if you are doing something on a public street you don’t want other people to see, you’re in the wrong place buddy, go some where private!
If I want I can walk anlong any street google has photoed and take a look myself, in 3D, fully updated, and plan a crime. No one is likely to even notice!
Cameras for anyone who wants to take pictures is the only way, you cannot have a fussy law. If you don’t want to see it on Google Streetview, why are you doing it where you can be seen from the street!
March 25th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
@ Anonymous Coward:
A global panopticon is *not* an option that I’d desire, but I think it’s better than the alternatives. Keep in mind, this is only for public space, not for individuals home.
@ Ravine:
I think the ‘thieves could use it’ argument is silly. Are there any people out there who are planning a career in burglary, but only because Google Street View makes it easy? If people are going to burgle, they will do it with our without Street View.
But, you are right in a sense. Google Street View makes it easier for ’sinister’, as you call them, side effects. But the *main* effects are so much better. For example I’m planing a road trip across the United States this summer. The purpose of this is to find the next city that my wife and I may want to live in. Google Street View has been *enormously* helpful in finding neighborhoods that we may want to live in or places to avoid. Cutting out a few places because we don’t like the look of them will save us days worth of travel that we would have made without Street View. Generally, people use tools for good reasons — if you add up all the positive effects I think it’s clear that they outweigh the negative effects.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Also note real time information is… unlikely.
For example pulling up my house on google maps shows me an empty lot across the street from me, from where the electronics store burnt to the ground, two years ago. It’s been a gas station for quite a while now but it still shows an empty lot (not even paved yet).
March 27th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Wellington Grey, I thank you. You are a voice of reason.
I love StreetView.
My favourite idiotic rant about it was from http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/
“Does this mean that ‘anyone’ can effectively stake out my house or the houses on a street? So, for example, if this works in anything like ‘realtime’, a criminal could ‘watch’ my house from his PC (as opposed to lurking about suspiciously), work out my usual routine and then plan his business accordingly. I can think of a lot of other reasons why this and Google Earth could be a very handy tool for certain unsavoury members of society!”
- Johnny PH, Leeds
I give up.
March 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
These people make me ashamed to be from the UK… too many people here are absolutely clueless about their rights and are only too happy to surrender them up to authority, but if some stupid rag not fit to be called a newspaper tells them to be afraid of Google (or foreigners, or anything else) they’ll willingly comply. Google street view is fantastic, and tremendously useful. Hell, just recently I’ve been looking at places in Florence where people I know have been, and I’ve had a look around the streets, and decided I might go there myself. A guidebook may supply lots more info, but it can’t give me the experience that this wonderful technology provides. Google Street View shows me nothing I couldn’t have seen were I there myself *in a public place* at that time. However, it saves me a hell of a lot of travel to get some measure of that same experience. The possible benefits are endless, Google have taken good and admirable steps to protect privacy (blurring, taking down items on request), and acted responsibly, and it’s just a shame that idiotic media (and idiotic people) make such a loud noise. Wellington Grey – love your stuff, keep up the good work.
March 27th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Reality condemned as a gross invasion of privacy
————————————————————-
… A privacy spokesperson said; “Google also makes a lot of this information available, but at least they blur faces and number-plates. In Reality, people’s faces are clearly visible and number-plates can be easily read from a distance. How would you like it if every pimple and blemish on your face was constantly on display?”
Critics say Reality is a burglar’s dream, with houses and cars in plain view. This makes it very easy for burglars to study and choose potential targets. Of particular concern, Reality is not an opt-in service, and it is not possible to opt-out. A concerned citizen said: “There is no way I can remove my house and valuables from Reality… I have to leave them there like an open invitation to burglars”.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Hey, where’d ou get the google logo?
March 28th, 2009 at 2:13 am
@Giles
> I can think of a lot of other reasons why this and Google Earth could be a very handy tool for certain unsavoury members of society!”
So can be roads or lockpicks. Should those be prohibited too?
March 28th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I was quoting someone that is clearly completely mental. I agree with you!
March 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“I’m sorry, but your view is rather silly, and if GSV were to come to my city, I’d be writing angry letters as well.
“Cameras for some,” of course, is not an option as you paint it to be, it’s a range of options. Whether it’s good or bad depends on what cameras, and moreso it depends on what “some.” Should the police be allowed to monitor our every move? Of course not. Should I be allowed to monitor when my neighbour leaves and enters his house? Hell, no. Should you be able to watch people on the other side of the world hanging out of a garbage container? Thrice no. But a tourist should be able to take home a memento.”
You DO realise Google Street View doesn’t do that right? For instance thanks to the cinema and a clock nearby I’ve worked out that it would allow you to know my car (minus numberplate) was parked at my office at 2:20pm on a weekday in mid-Auguest last year.
Well that’s me fucked.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:00 am
I don’t understand why the image directly in front of 10 Downing St. is unavailable, when you can get just as good a look at it from 10 feet away on any of the other images. The irony in this censorship? the actual street is blocked by a tourbus of people stopped to take pictures…
April 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Yes the luddites are amongst us – see http://is.gd/qtsC
“Anonymous coward” – “this one is pure demagogy” – a slight over-reaction to a cartoon that is just putting forward this guy’s pretty valid opinion. The reaction of the UK has made me embarressed to live here too. It’s just recording a public view that is available to anyone at any time if they want to walk down your street (which is what a burglar would do, rather than referencing a picture that may be over a year old).
April 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Indeed, “thieves could use it” makes as much sense as “matches cause arson” or “guns cause murder”.
May 9th, 2009 at 2:51 am
What the heck is MacCartism???
If you’re going to rant about McCarthyism, know WTF you’re talking about.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
DONT YOU PEOPLE HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO DO
June 28th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Lol it’s not a camera. It’s a few pictures – like a 3-d model. It’s not a 1984 monitoring system. It isn’t a “cameras to all” thing, because it’s just a picture.
And the whole “cameras to all” vs “cameras to some” thing is lame. Why would you want a live camera showing ppl walking around. Who cares? Invasion to privacy my anus. See “definition of ‘public place.’”
gfsdg, don’t you have something better to do?
I don’t have anything better to do cuz it’s nighttime and I’m an insomniac which means I’m up till 5 am earliest. Not much to do in here quietly except stumble around on the interwebs or play guitar w/out an amp.
@Dudley
Dude, you can monitor when your neighbor leaves and enters his house if you want. It’s not illegal to look at things to get information, whether you want to use a camera or your own eyes.
It’s not like your neighbor “owns” the privacy of his front door. If you walk out your front door you ought to be aware that it is slightly possible somebody saw you. But wtf cares.
The police shouldn’t be allowed to do crap, but if you are in a public street they can watch you if they want. Why shouldn’t you get to see people on the other side of the world (the indian ocean for me) hanging out of garbage cans? Those people have no right not to be seen.
This is like an “approved content” thing. Should people only be allowed to see what they have some made-up right to see?