Google Slapped Again

[nihil]

Google and their streetview are in a spot more bother:

The Information Commissioner's Office has changed its mind about Google's Street View and decided that it is after all in breach of the Data Protection Act.

About bloody time too!

The search and ad giant recently appointed a privacy director to help it sort out internal practices and oversee privacy in all its products. This came after it admitted that its mass Wi-Fi snoop from its fleet of Street View cars had slurped up passwords and entire emails and URLs.

They should have done that from the very beginning, as I have posted before.

Ooops! I forgot, Google is bigger than any sovereign state and above the law.............sorry about that............most remiss of me

Article is here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...le_streetview/

[Cider]

I presume the steet cars are the google maps dudes?

[nihil]

I presume the steet cars are the google maps dudes? Today 02:21 PM

No, it is "street view", the scum who invade your privacy by photographing your home and posting it on the internet.

Google have grown too big for themselves and need to be destroyed, and quickly.

There are others who will fill the gap, and quickly, but would learn from Google's fate?

[metguru]

No, it is "street view", the scum who invade your privacy by photographing your home and posting it on the internet.

Nihil, I am usually in agreement with you, but on this matter, I don't really understand what the big deal about Google taking pictures outside your house. Anyone has that ability. Some creeper could drive in front of your house and take pictures and have the same pictures Google took for them.

And if you don't want people taking pictures of the inside of your house, close the blinds? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

[The-Spec]

Its the annoyance of it all. The vehicles coming in full storm and blocking everyone in at every turn. Then driving into things that aren't roads at all. Oh, and the sheer amount of pictures that are actually taken that you have to one-by-one ask them to take down.

For me, its mostly the overall lack of respect toward these communities and the wishes of the public at large. If this where Scientology we'd be calling it their "fair game policy"... complete with cameras and everything.

[wiskic10_4]

I'm with metguru

I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think it's cool.

Anyone can drive by and take a picture of your house, so I don't see how it's a legal issue...
Maybe your house is different than mine, but not much can be seen from the street, so I don't see how it's a privacy issue...
I've never even seen the Google vehicles, and it's not like they come by often, so I don't see the annoyance issue...

I think some people just like to complain...

[edit]especially crotchety old farts!!!

[Cider]

So now we have to put up huge walls to stop pictures of the pot plant or underwear hanging on your line in the garden arent posted in the internet ...

Its that google is doing it on mass which is the problem. Every house, every road. Its like the big push from the US government :P

[nihil]

Some creeper could drive in front of your house and take pictures and have the same pictures Google took for them.

That would be suspicious behaviour, as nobody would have good reason to do such a thing. Whilst you might have legal entitlement to take pictures in public places, with a few exceptions, everything has changed since 9/11 and the London/Madrid bombings.

Basically if you behave suspiciously, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Now, over here we have the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) which basically says that you can be held without charge for 48 hours. On the other hand, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2002) makes that 28 days, and that would be the one they would use. If you have "previous" for burglary, housebreaking and theft they would charge you with "Loitering With Intent".

Criminals and terrorists are well aware of all this, but have no problems with it because Google let them do the same thing from the comfort of their own homes, without risk, and with a six-pack by their sides. Over here, criminals have admitted to using Google, when arrested.

Neither street view nor satellite view have any real value to the General Public, they are entirely gratuitous and unnecessary. They are very useful to criminals and terrorists.

My concern is not about "privacy", about which a lot of crap is spouted; my concern is about the security of individuals and their property. And there is no good in having your bit removed...........you might as well erect a neon sign: "something here worth looking at".

Now about Google themselves:

This came after it admitted that its mass Wi-Fi snoop from its fleet of Street View cars had slurped up passwords and entire emails and URLs.

They claim that this was "an accident"...........well, after 30 years working in Applications Systems design, development, implementation, and project management, I can assure you that I don't believe in "accidents".

Irrespective of which structured development methodology you use, there is a "development cycle" Put simplistically it goes like this:

1. Request for application.
2. High level feasibility study. This gives a high level view of what functionality is required, how much it will cost, what resources are required and how long it will take.
3. Detailed requirements specification.
4. Design specification
5. Development/coding
6. Systems testing
7. Systems implementation (roll-out)

All those phases have to be signed off by the project sponsor and budget holder at the very least, so we are talking senior management here.

I would love to see the project development documentation for this one.........but I bet it has gone missing, or been "sanitised" (anyone remember Ollie North?).

If you look at #6 in the lifecycle list above you should appreciate that they knew exactly what data they were collecting, and that it was no accident.

They knew exactly what their software did, and went ahead and installed the supporting hardware in their Street View cars. That combination would have been tested as well...............accident?.............my ass!!!

Google demonstrate all the ethics and morality of a junkyard tom. They flagrantly disregard the laws of sovereign states and the security and privacy of private individuals.

Their mission statement would seem to be:

"Let's grab everything we can and figure out how to monetize it later"

I wonder what the American People's reaction would be if they found that Obama's regime were doing this?

Yes, I am complaining:

1. I don't like being lied to.
2. I don't like being taken for a fool, particularly by a shower of twats!

I wonder what Google's CMM rating is?.....4 at least I would bet.........and I will let you Google "Capability Maturity Model", to figure out the implications

[The-Spec]

I wonder what the American People's reaction would be if they found that Obama's regime were doing this?

Actually every bad president we've had since the fifties have been aging white republicans. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush's kid... need I say more? We need to get rid of these so called conservative views and become so radical we terrorise all you dusty little monarchy based societies. Hell, Obama isn't LIBERAL ENOUGHT!!

Anyone can drive by and take a picture of your house, so I don't see how it's a legal issue...

Some places require permits to which they never legally obtain or even notify these home owners. They have no general courtesy or respect for you or your community at large. This isn't some photojournalist doing something artsy, you idiot... this is a company treating people like **** while making serious bank in the process.

They ****ing hold copyrights of the images of YOUR HOME! How is that even possible?

[wiskic10_4]

Neither street view nor satellite view have any real value to the General Public, they are entirely gratuitous and unnecessary.

I think it's helpful, especially when trying to find someone's house or when you're looking to buy a house.

They are very useful to criminals and terrorists[...]Over here, criminals have admitted to using Google, when arrested.

I guess I'm still failing to see how a criminal could "use Google" to rob a house? I mean, I guess they get on street view and do a "virtual scope-out" of the place? All of the images I see for the local area are several years old. It's not like they can see if anyone is home. I guess they could be looking for "loose" items? Still, I think that's pretty weak - and, ultimately, you are responsible for locking your stuff up. I seriously doubt a thief is going to pick out a steal because he sees an unlocked bicycle on your front porch via Google Maps.

This isn't some photojournalist doing something artsy, you idiot... this is a company treating people like **** while making serious bank in the process.

I guess I don't feel like I've been "treated like ****" because I didn't get notification that Google was going to drive by and take pictures of the neighborhood... that hardly makes me an "idiot"... such emotions!?

They ****ing hold copyrights of the images of YOUR HOME! How is that even possible?

Ermmm... because they took the picture maybe? Just a thought...

I just don't see it as an infringement on anyone's rights, and I certainly don't believe that's what Google set out to do. I think it's a handy little feature to have on their already awesome Maps web app. I mean, unless the pictures were taken from a private road, I don't see how they've done anything wrong.