Google Slapped Again

Google and their streetview are in a spot more bother:

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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 :rolleyes:

Article is here:

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

:(

I presume the steet cars are the google maps dudes?

Quote:

---

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? :D:cool::eek::lildevil::xbones::shocked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nihil

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.

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.

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... :rolleyes:

[edit]especially crotchety old farts!!! :D:p;)

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

Quote:

---

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.:eek:

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

:rolleyes:

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?:lildevil:).

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!!!:mad:

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 :D

Quote:

---

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!!

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nihil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nihil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

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

---

:o
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!? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiskic10_4

...
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.

---

I'm still in agreement with wiskic. It's your own responsibility to keep yourself and your property safe. If someone keeps a Lexus parked outside their house and someone stole it because its picture was on street-view, its not Google's fault. Its their fault that they weren't properly protecting their own property. It is in my opinion that no one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore, as well as their lack of actions.

And for the third or forth time in a row you still don't get it. And what about dignity? Or better yet, most people would settle for some form of common civility from them.

If they aren't a giant infringement on everyone's rights then they wouldn't have been sued... and then hit again when they refuse to comply with court appointed orders just to leave these people alone.

Private roads? Even trucking industry has more respect for privacy and the safety of other people on the road than these guys.

I like street view.......gives me an idea of where I am going. I really dont see a problem with pictures of my house on the interweb.....makes me more diligent in making sure my info is private....ie...unpublished phone number etc.

I dont like the fact that they captured the wireless info.....

MLF

Hell, not even AT&T had the balls to display such a snobby "we are the world... and your just in it" kinda attitude toward the customers they've spied on and scammed. But the world is already small... so why take things to a point where it makes you suffocate?

Quote:

---

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

---

If my home is my castle then who's to say it isn't my brand name and trademark aswell. Do you honestly think google would let me copyright an image of something they owned? Yet alone make a business model out of it!?

Quote:

---

gives me an idea of where I am going.

---

I wonder how far outside your home you get before being lost. Or did you mean that it "guides you spiritually"?

Morgan. When it all boils down to it... the world isn't run by a company, the free masons, the illuminati, or even a bunch of jews. Instead the world is exclusively run by stupid people and you happen to be one of them. So of course you see no problem with it, you're an idiot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

If my home is my castle then who's to say it isn't my brand name and trademark aswell. Do you honestly think google would let me copyright an image of something they owned? Yet alone make a business model out of it!?

---

If you took a picture of the Google headquarters from the street, and for whatever reason, people paid you to see it, then I shouldn't think that Google would have any problem with it, nor could they do anything about it - the photo is your property, and there were no signs posted that said "No Photographs".

Of course, I don't pay Google a dime to look at the houses on street view, and neither does anybody else (that I know of).

A "business model"? Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

Morgan. When it all boils down to it... the world isn't run by a company, the free masons, the illuminati, or even a bunch of jews. Instead the world is exclusively run by stupid people and you happen to be one of them. So of course you see no problem with it, your an idiot!

---

Well, at least Morgan can spell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

..."we are the world... and your just in it" kinda additude...

---

wtf is "additude"?

Whatever. You don't agree with it? Fine. But for God's sake, grow up and debate the matter like an adult - like nihil and the rest of the people on the forum. This "your an idiot" crap is uncalled for, and only serves to make you look like a child. Aren't you like 26 or something? I guess some folks never out grow trolling... :rolleyes:

[edit] nice edit. :p

Trolling outside your home with a camera is fine. But the moment its not agreed upon to get-along on your silly little forum...

suddenly the tables turn and you're the one left saying, "hey that's uncalled for... stop... you can't do that!"

Quote:

---

Trolling outside your home with a camera is fine. But the moment its not agreed upon to get-along on your silly little forum...

suddenly the tables turn and you're the one left saying, "hey that's uncalled for... stop... you can't do that!"

---

I don't care that you don't agree with me/us/whoever. But you don't have to be disrespectful about it.

Granted, I did imply that nihil was a "crotchety old fart" - but it was all in fun - sorry if I offended you nihil - I was just trying to be funny... :p

I need to practice what I preach I guess... :eek:

I don't think Google driving down the street taking pictures is "trolling", but you're entitled to your opinion.

If Google Street View begins causing problems for me or my community, perhaps I'll change my mind - but so far, this is the first place I've heard anyone complain - and I honestly don't see how it's disrespectful, undignified or "snobby" - I think Google is just being Google - creating innovative and useful tools with technology and sharing them on the Intarwebz - and admittedly, making some serious bank in doing so.

So what about Google Ocean - is that an infringement on someone's rights? Or is it just disrespectful to the fishies? :confused: :p :D

"Sharing" web based technology usually consist of users posting the content... not a company going directly to your home, taking it, then abuse some DMCA loophole to gain an instant copyright over whatever they find (or break into and steal).

So The_Spec, let me understand you.

You have a huuuuuuuge issue with Google Earth, they invade your privacy etc, but yet you openly "Break" into people's website's invading there privacy etc etc just so you can deface there property?

How's google earth doing what there doing any different to what you get up to?

Like i' said i'm curious, and really don't understand the difference?

As you've mentioned people have in the past have used the google earth thing to check out potential places to break into and do whatever to. And you willingly scan multiple websites for the taking.

The burglar breaks in steals causes damages, you break into the webserver either by running shell code or what ever, you cause damages by changing the appearance of the site and what ever else you do while messing around with the controls.

how's what you do any different to what google are doing? I see it as both technically invade people's privacy..

Not that i have an issue with Google Earth, infact i love using there app, as i get to view different parts of the world and see things in a clearer picture then what i would see from a censored book/television etc.



:)

Quote:

---

Trolling outside your home with a camera is fine. But the moment its not agreed upon to get-along on your silly little forum...

---

Google, by definition, is not trolling anybody.

Quote:

---

"Sharing" web based technology usually consist of users posting the content... not a company going directly to your home, taking it, then abuse some DMCA loophole to gain an instant copyright over whatever they find (or break into and steal).

---

Google is not infringing on any copyright law within the United States when taking street view pictures.

Quote:

---

If my home is my castle then who's to say it isn't my brand name and trademark aswell. Do you honestly think google would let me copyright an image of something they owned? Yet alone make a business model out of it!?

---

Google has no legal privilege to allow or disallow you from copyrighting an image that you have taken, regardless of what picture that may be.

The_Spec: I am not flaming you, nor am I attacking you. I am simply pointing out that although you may hate Google, and that is completely within your rights, you can't simply make claims that they are doing things that are illegal because you think what they're doing is immoral. You are making statements on legality based on your emotional opinion of Google. That is just not how it works. You can say that what Google is doing is just wrong all you want, but you can't say that they are breaking US laws just because you hate them and what they are doing is in some gray area of morality.

If they aren't breaking the law then they wouldn't be taken to court so much. They didn't even start bluring things out intil they where slapped with a court order just to do that. These people just want some space in a shrinking world... come on.

Quote:

---

Google has no legal privilege to allow or disallow you from copyrighting an image that you have taken, regardless of what picture that may be.

---

Hell look at apple, they turned people's lives around and buried them in court-appointed papers... all because some guy had a picture of an iphone and at the time, a few unproven rumors it was unreleased.

Antitrust? Are any of their logos in the picture? How rare is the architecture and design of the building itself? Where the pictures taken during a crime?

These would be questions I would have to answer. And the very legal decisions would always be split on money that I DO NOT HAVE. When its an average Joe against a company, it always boils down to how much pity you have on your side (and how much your life is worth). Your ignorance of how the system and the world at large operates is laughable... if it wheren't so sad at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

These people just want some space in a shrinking world... come on.

---

I guess I just don't see how having a digital image of a street-point view of your property accessible on the Internet is "shrinking" anyone's world. If they were zooming in on your windows or even your backyard, then that would be much different - but the images on Google Maps are no different than what any passerby would see. It seems completely innocent to me, and I don't have any reason to suspect otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

Hell look at apple, they turned people's lives around and buried them in court-appointed papers... all because some guy had a picture of an iphone and at the time, a few unproven rumors it was unreleased.

---

Can you link me? I think I remember hearing the rumor, but I thought it was a fake, and I never heard of anyone going to court over it - I Googled "iPhone leak" "Apple sues," etc, etc - but i never found anything about it other than a blog on a fake picture of the supposed iPhone 4 for Verizon... and nobody got sued or buried in court papers in that article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

Antitrust? Are any of their logos in the picture? How rare is the architecture and design of the building itself? Where the pictures taken during a crime?

These would be questions I would have to answer. And the very legal decisions would always be split on money that I DO NOT HAVE. When its an average Joe against a company, it always boils down to how much pity you have on your side (and how much your life is worth).

---

That is an excellent point, and very true. However, to my knowledge, Google hasn't sued any "little people" - doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I just haven't heard about it. The legal system in our country is laughable at times, however, I don't think it's always about money or pity - remember when McDonald's got sued for coffee being too hot? Or Philip-Morris being sued by smokers with lung cancer? I think it largely depends on how well a weasely lawyer can twist the law into saying what he wants it to say, and then convince a jury to buy into it. And unfortunately, an intelligence test is not used in juror screening. :(

I'm not sure why you think that ownership of a photograph somehow depends upon what the photograph is of? Do you think the paparazzi send Angelina Jolie a check every time they take her picture? Let me break it down for ya, as I understand it.

Code:

---

if(property==inClearPublicView){
  pictureSomeonesProperty!=saidPersonsProperty;
  pictureSomeonesProperty==pictureTakersProperty;
}
else
  print("Best be having permission first. =D  ");

---

Alternatively, you can check out chapter two in this book: Legal Handbook for Photographers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

Your ignorance of how the system and the world at large operates is laughable... if it wheren't so sad at the same time.

---

Damn. Talking smack again. :rolleyes:

Well, I challenge you to provide me with evidence that the pictures on Google Maps street-view are in violation with any United States law. I'm not saying that they're not - I'm just saying that I don't know of any, and a thirty-second search (on Google :() didn't turn up anything for me. So please, The-Spec - enlighten us. ;) :p :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiskic10_4

Can you link me? I think I remember hearing the rumor, but I thought it was a fake, and I never heard of anyone going to court over it - I Googled "iPhone leak" "Apple sues," etc, etc - but i never found anything about it other than a blog on a fake picture of the supposed iPhone 4 for Verizon... and nobody got sued or buried in court papers in that article.

---

Here's the link from gizmodo that started the whole lost iphone4 thing

http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

The case didn't make it to court, apple tried to pull legal mumbo jumbo while throwing a temper tantrum because there "God" phone got leaked./
the case ended up getting dropped, and Steve Jobs is still butt-hurt over the whole incident.

and now Gizmodo staff are no longer invited to Apple events. not that it's a big loss or anything ... :D

@ The_Spec, you failed to respond to my post.. Hows this street view different to you invading webmasters privacy and defacing there property?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

Morgan. When it all boils down to it... the world isn't run by a company, the free masons, the illuminati, or even a bunch of jews. Instead the world is exclusively run by stupid people and you happen to be one of them. So of course you see no problem with it, you're an idiot!

---

Well I least I dont smell like poo :D

I agree the street view is a very handy tool...recently visited Cleveland....never been before.
Thanks to street view and google maps I was able to view the hotels.....and use it to view the areas and plan my trips to the Rock and Roll Museum and the Browns Stadium....basically walk the hood before actually even visiting....it was very cool :cool:

I also used it before I traveled to England.....and was very familiar with the areas I was staying before I even visited and again was able to plan my sight seeing.

Personally ...I love Google and all their gadgets. I think they are innovative and progressive and there are alot scarier things out in the interweb then them

MLF

Quote:

---

I challenge you to provide me with evidence that the pictures on Google Maps street-view are in violation with any United States law.

---

§§ 652A-652I, because I half-heartedly looked. You didn't even do that.

unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.

It DOES NOT MATTER how clear these pictures and recordings are. Having these cameras setup a yard above the vehicle itself to peer over fences... and just the potential to view something inside a home is enought.

appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy.

publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home. publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation.

The private facts where gained the moment they took these pictures not just when they sniffed wireless traffic. Every bit of it applies to them... all of it.

Quote:

---

Hows this street view different to you invading webmasters privacy and defacing there property?

---

What? You mean these companys are monetizing the internet? All these nations that are censoring themselves to the point of complete separation from the internet at large? To hell with these guys. The only real argument to be had are these Mom-And-Pop.com domains.

Holy crap The-Spec... I'm impressed!

I'll edit this post when I get back from AA to debate it a little further - or maybe even agree with you (doubtful).

But thanks for bringing something of substance to the thread, instead of name-calling and bullheaded opinions. :thumbsup: :D

[EDIT]

Ok, well here's a link: Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 652A-E

I don't find Google to be guilty of invading anyone's privacy (maybe the wifi sniffing - but that's another issue entirely - I'm debating the legal right of Google to obtain and make public the photographs featured on Google Maps Street View)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.

It DOES NOT MATTER how clear these pictures and recordings are. Having these cameras setup a yard above the vehicle itself to peer over fences... and just the potential to view something inside a home is enought.

---

As I've said before, the pictures are taken from a public viewpoint, so anything they contain were viewable by the public at the time the picture was taken. It's not like they go and zoom in on your windows and your backyard. If you live in a corner house, your backyard is viewable from the street in larger vehicles (ie trash truck, etc) - it's your responsibility to build a bigger fence if you don't want people to see what's in your backyard. Most people don't care. And I certainly don't think Google intended to "peer over fences" - the cameras are more likely set up high so they can capture more distance (instead of the jacked-up Ford in front of the Google Van).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy.

publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home. publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation.

The private facts where gained the moment they took these pictures not just when they sniffed wireless traffic. Every bit of it applies to them... all of it.

---

That bit has nothing to do with the subject at hand, that I can see.

The wireless traffic they sniffed and the data they collected was never released to the public, so no defamation there...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...wifi-sniffing/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

It DOES NOT MATTER how clear these pictures and recordings are. Having these cameras setup a yard above the vehicle itself to peer over fences... and just the potential to view something inside a home is enought.

---

Such photos are routinely used in real estate and tax assessments. I work for a number of real estate appraisers, and they'd all be in jail if taking pictures of another's house was unwarranted. In the county I live in, street-view photos of about any house in the county are available online.

Anybody here really a match for Google's legal dep't? I doubt it. ;)

Actually it comes with a feature to zoom in and out. But it doesn't matter how clear the pictures are or even if it was taken from public viewpoint. If people don't want their pictures taken then you should leave them alone... enought said.

Quote:

---

it's your responsibility to build a bigger fence if you don't want people to see what's in your backyard.

---

But why push people to the point of even building a fence? The fact that you would even consider this as a solution only shows they've gone to far.

An incidental Berlin wall reference, at that? Really?! Im taking the high road in this thread without even trying. Thanks to you, now when people hear "google"... they're going to think Communist Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The-Spec

An incidental Berlin wall reference, at that? Really?! Im taking the high road in this thread without even trying. Thanks to you, now when people hear "google"... they're going to think Communist Russia.

---

lmao. Communist Russia even!? Well, whatever. To quote one of my favorite characters from one of my favorite movies,
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man" ;)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck)

I think we've beaten this horse to death. Google's going to do what they want. I'm sure that their legal department is funded generously, and that they are prepared to take on the argument should it ever arise in the States. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with street view. Clearly some others do. I agree to disagree.

That is all. :D