Wary of Google Street View? Move, CEO says

[marmar]

By John Letzing, MarketWatch


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Google Inc. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said in remarks broadcast Friday that people concerned about images of their homes appearing on the company’s Street View mapping service can “just move.”

During an appearance on CNN’s “Parker Spitzer,” previewed on CNN.com, the Google chief responded to questions about personal data the company collects, including images of private homes presented on Street View.

“Street View, we drive exactly once,” Schmidt said, referring to the vehicles mounted with cameras sent out to take photos for the service. “So, you can just move, right?” After a brief, subsequent exchange with co-host Kathleen Parker, Schmidt laughed, making it unclear whether the remark was made in jest.

The executive added in reference to Street View that “the important point is we only do it once,” and that “this is not a monitoring situation.” ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wary-of-google-street-view-move-ceo-says-2010-10-22

[Statistical]

1. OH NOES GOOGLE saw (only the outside of) my house!!!!!

Panic Attack. Danger Will Robinson. OH NOES.



I bet their creepy CEO jerks off to pictures of the naked exterior of my home. It is so gross.


In related news couple hundred (thousand?) people a year see my house with their EYES when they drive or walk by.
We need to cut eyes out of peoples heads to protect my house's Constitutional right to privacy.

[Xipe Totec]

2. I'd like to know when they'll do it, so I can hang the moon on my window nt

[marmar]

3. "I bet their creepy CEO jerks off to pictures of the naked exterior of my home"

No, he probably just jerks off to pictures of piles of money.

[baldguy]

4. It's the arrogant attitude that bothers me.

While Google was taking pics for StreetView, they also collect info about the private individual WiFi networks they pass. They've never explained why they do that. The people walking by your house aren't all hacking into your home network, are they?

[Statistical]

11. Well if you are stupid enough to run an unsecured wifi then YES

people walking by are connecting to your wifi.

I wouldn't really call it "hacking" though. It would be like saying reaching into an open paper bag is "safe cracking".

[Taitertots]

13. When you take the contents from a paper bag you are still stealing

Taking information without permission is still hacking. Maybe you should be less concerned with insulting people and more concerned a mega corporation is trying to break into everyone's computer networks without permission.

Just because it is in a paper bag, doesn't mean it is your's to take.

[Statistical]

15. Your claims are bogus.

When one steals something the original owner has something taken. If I steal your car then you lose access to said car.

When one make a copy of information they aren't stealing because the original hasn't been lost. Now in some instances copyright laws restrict what/how/when one can legally make a copy but it isn't stealing.

If you broadcast information openly and someone listens to that there is no expectation of privacy. Period. It doesn't matter if it is something you are yelling verbally or your wifi router is "yelling" into public airwaves.

It was a mistake on Google part. There system is deisgned to catalog public wifi spots and in the process "listened" to private but unsecured wifi spots YELLING into the public airwaves. They notified the authorities (nobody caught google) and implemented policies to avoid it happening in the future.

If you want privacy then be responsible for your own privacy and at a minimum that involves nor yelling into a public place (either physically or via digital transmission). Anything you broadcast INTO THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES openly is no longer private. Hence the term PUBLIC AIRWAVES.

[Taitertots]

24. Legally correct, reprehensible to anyone with common sense

Cell phones broadcast into the "public airwaves", can google record all your phone calls? After all your cell phone is just yelling into public airwaves.


Yelling and having wireless internet are not the same to anyone with a shred of common sense. The expectation of privacy should absolutely protect people using their computers at home. Taking someone's wireless internet information is exactly the same as hacking into their cell phone.

[WinkyDink]

18. It isn't your paper bag, though, is it? Do you take fruit from sidewalk displays?

[Statistical]

20. Is it a crime to take the words you yell into a public place?

Fruit from a stand is a bogus analogy. One can't record a fruit.

So no I can't take fruit from a stand but I could take a photo of it, or takes notes on its size, shape, composistion. If you are making false claims about the fruit I could record your words. One equate the transfering of physicsl property to recording information broadcast into public airways.

If you are standing on the street and YELL out some information you have no expectation of privacy if someone hears it. Sorry you don't. You can't claim someone stole your private words. Similarly an unsecured network broadcasting into public space on a public unlicensed spectrum has no expectation of privacy. It is the digital equivalent of yelling into a public space.

You can't yell into public and them at same time claim your privacy has been violated.

[WinkyDink]

32. I'll yield. I am no expert on Wifi.

[WinkyDink]

17. You don't get the entire picture, which, ironically, Googling can add to, to wit:

StreetView has captured E-MAILS and PASSWORDS.
StreetView has shown regular citizens in embarrassing PRIVATE moments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11614970

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/844928-google-may-face-new-privacy-investigation-over-street-view-data

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371367,00.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323310/Google-used-Street-View-cars-emails-passwords-privacy-breach.html

[truedelphi]

33. How right you are. Google is capturing our key strokes,

And as Eric Schmidt explained to Parker and Spitzer, they feel obligated to keep every keystroke of our keyboard activity for up to eighteen months, in case the government wants the info.

Also nauseating remarks that Schmidt made were his thoughts that "entitlements" should go the way of the dinosaur. He pointed out that Americans should get with the program, as after all they are indeed raising the retirement ages in Europe. (He didn't point out that after those ages are raised, workers there will still retire with full benefits by age sixty two. We cannot even do that now.)

I guess he thinks older Americans should continue to work till they die. Which is ironic, as Google employs almost all younger people. (There have been several age related work lawsuits against Google.) It would have been very decent of Spitzer to ask Mr Schmidt just where it is that the aging Baby Boomers are going to find jobs... It also would have been only fair for either Parekr or Spitzet to point out that the Social Security fund is currently fully vested, with a secure 2.11 trillion bucks sitting there.

[charlie]

5. I'll admit

I felt a prickle of unease when my house finally turned up in Street View.

But, then I was delighted when I saw they snapped my dog, who jams his head under the blinds when he sees a big vehicle go by (Vans and trucks set off his Ice Cream Truck detector. Baying at the Ice Cream Truck is one of his doggie imperatives).

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Have to laugh at Google' s "drive-by" of our street.

We live in a tiny tiny town. I tried out their street map of my side of town.
They only "mapped" 2 streets, had the buildings marked about half a mile away from where they really are,
( how the hell can you miss a super Wal-Mart????)
and their overhead satellite maps lowest resolution leaves everything a fuzzy blur.

Privacy...we has it.

[PADemD]

9. Their sattelite map of my address points to my neighbor's house.

[Brickbat]

27. Their work in rural areas is hilariously bad...if I google my address, the map gives me a point five

miles away. LMAO.

[pipi_k]

28. Wow, that is pretty bad!

At least the satellite view of my home is within 1,000 feet.

:7

[TBF]

7. Rich folk only believe in privacy for themselves -

you can be sure that his mansion won't show up on "street view".

[charlie]

8. Appears so

Street View is grayed out for his address.

Map view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=366+walsh+road,+94027

Satellite view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=366+walsh+road,+94027&ll=37.433602,-122.218952&spn=0.001393,0.002642&t=k

[Gormy Cuss]

10. Sucker bet, that one.

eta: There are no "street views" of estates far from the road. That's what protects the wealthy.

As for the idiot's contention that the important thing is that they only take the street view once, that's a strong case for them to edit out all of the identifiable people (including any who are visible INSIDE the windows of the house.)

[Statistical]

12. What expectation of privacy?

How do you have any expectation of privacy from people seeing the exterior of your homes as visible from public roadway?

I mean do you force your neighbors to wear blindfolds when they walk by?

BTW: Google CEO house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=366+walsh+road,+94027&ll=37.433602,-122.218952&spn=0.001393,0.002642&t=k#

[Gormy Cuss]

14. Neighbors aren't snapping photos and loading them to a search engine.

The real issue isn't the outside of the house, it's the bycatch of photos which include identifiable human subjects, posting that image on a commercial site and profiting from that image.

[Statistical]

16. Once again you have no expectation of privacy in public.

I could intentionally take your photo in public and put it on a website and make money from it. You have absolutely no expectation of privacy in a public place. Hence the term PUBLIC place. The roadways (at least until Republicans get their way) are still public places.

[WinkyDink]

19. I think one must ID people if the possibility was extant. But in any event, you totally wouldn't

care if, say, thousands of random people took your photo every day, drove by your house and photographed it, by the thousands (to paraphrase the old joke, I know your position; now we're just haggling over numbers) AND then posted these pictures on the Internet? COMPLETE WITH ADDRESS?

[katandmoon]

21. The issue the double standard. This CEO fucker's house doesn't appear. Why do you think that is?

[Statistical]

22. No property that can't be seen from public road appears.

The vehicles can only travel on public roads.

Lots or rural property not seen from public roads (due to terrain, trees, etc) aren't recorded. Similarly the "interior" lots of a trailer park aren't recorded (obviously the trailers seen from the road are).

[smiley_glad_hands]

23. I love google street view, use it all the time. Eom

[Taitertots]

25. Eric Schmidt, What a liar

"Street View, we drive exactly once,”
This is an absolute lie. I looked at my parent's house on street view. In one frame their car is in the street, in the next frame the car is in the driveway. Two separate shots taken on two separate days.

[pipi_k]

26. I was actually disappointed to find out

that Google didn't have a street view of my home.

It would have come in handy this past spring/summer when we were trying to sell it so people could get a look at the area before they wasted our time coming out here only to decide they "didn't like the road".

[struggle4progress]

29. If you don't want people to see the outside of your house, you can cover it with mirrors

or plant lots of shrubs around it or drape it with camouflage-netting

Google's Street View isn't very intrusive

[Odin2005]

30. They caught my lights being accidently left on when I was at work! OH the HUMILIATION!!!

:rofl:

[The Straight Story]

31. The joke is on google for my hood - they missed us!

All of Columbus is on there and my hood shows up in blue, but the street view shows a view from the freeway up on the hill behind the house. Idjits :)