He's got this the wrong way round
if he wants to show my house on his system he should have to ask me to opt in. Not visa versa.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt today said he "misspoke" when he suggested that people who don't like pictures of their homes appearing on Street View should "just move". A Google spokeswoman contacted The Register this morning with further musings from her gaffe-prone boss. "As you can see from the unedited interview, my comments were …
if he wants to show my house on his system he should have to ask me to opt in. Not visa versa.
Do I need your permission to walk down your street and look at your house myself?
No but you need to at least be in the vicinity, usually at least.
And you are only there as long as you care to remain. To move on when it gets cold, wet or police turn up.
You are not however forever plastered across a website, for all and sundry to look at from the company of their cyber stalking arm chairs. Removing from Google doesn't remove from the cache of every server or proxy that has ever moved across that area of street view to look at your house and google won't remove unless you ask, which means the emphasis is on the user, not the organisation.
no, but you should need my permission to photograph it and post it on the internet
How about if you had kids playing on a beach... You probably wouldn't have an issue with someone being in the general vicinity and being able to see them, however, if they started taking photo's and posting them on the net I'm assuming you'd object!
...since Google is indirectly making money from having my house's picture on their site, why shouldn't they pay for the privilege?
Give up the "please think of the children" defence, there's a massive difference between taking photos of a house and people's children. For instance, my original house is on Street View, I don't live in it anymore so what's the problem?
My current house was put on Street View BEFORE I moved in, what's the problem? Unless you somehow define the essence of your inner being by the front of your house and garden vvery little privacy is eroded with Street View
I'm pretty sure that there's no specific law prohibiting you from sitting outside a random house for as long as you want, assuming you're not trespassing, causing a nuisance or appearing threatening.
Actually, there is a law for that. It's called "loitering." What standard you have to meet to be in violation of it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally the requirement happens to be "being in the same place (other then private property with the permission of the owner) too long.
i'm pretty sure if you try, you'll see how it turns out.
When I was at college, Common Law provided that the Queen's Highway is for travelling and nothing else. If you stop on a public thoroughfare then you can be made to "move on", or be charged with loitering or obstruction.
I mean, it's a pretty nasty thing to say even if it was just one neighborhood, or city, or country that StreetView was going through, but they seem to be intent on spreading it everywhere anyway.
But then I found this http://www.google.com/moon/
Should be safe for at least a hundred years or so...
The co founders of Google should tell their CEO to STFU.
Always change jobs
... I don't give a rat's ass about the gootards having photos of my place available for all and sundry, world-wide, to peruse. Maps, even very detailed digital maps, aren't a good way for "the bad guys" to figure out where my dawgs hang out ... or if the Wife, foreman & I are undertaking target practice at any given moment.
Seriously. The whole "street view" thingie is a red herring ... The REAL privacy issues involve everything that the gootards can connect your IP address to.
Once again, I invite TheGreatUnwashed[tm] to enroll in "Critical Thinking 101" ...
 No, not "terrorists", there are no terrorists. In these parts, it's the meth-heads in the Springs district ...
 So-called "terrorists" are a weapon of mass distraction ...
I wish you luck with that near-impossible undertaking. If you succeed, can you please tell us all how you did it?
Having something edited out after it's been published globally isn't helpful. If we have the right to have ourselves and our property removed then we have the right to forbid them being included in the first place -- which is the only effective way of offering privacy. Anything else is an ineffectual sham, and perpetually boasting about how easy it is to have our privacy protected after it's been breached is an insult.
Google is missing the point, deliberately. It does what it wants and offers to make amends later, which doesn't justify its actions.
Frankly, even assuming it was a joke, I still think the moron needs to go.
On the one hand, we have Schmidt babbling forth with yet more "jokes" about privacy while Google are picking up a reputation for not respecting privacy. He does this with some regularity which suggests that he either is too stupid to learn from his mistakes (unlikely) or that he really does feel this way and he is unfortunately afflicted with a too-small "shite buffer"*.
On the other hand, we have CNN editing this out after the fact. That's plain wrong, and whether Google requested it or not is irrelevant. They edited it out, where a proper journalist should have been reaching for a shovel and preparing to dig as deep as possible to find out what the hell is going on.
* the "shite buffer": postulated by some friends and I over a Friday night carry-out some time ago, the shite buffer is that place in your brain where thoughts go for final editing. Like the short delay introduced into live broadcasts on TV and radio. Some people lack this feature and run their mouths with whatever plopped out of their brain. Others have a keenly-developed buffer and rarely say the wrong thing.
And some of us try very hard to develop a shite buffer on the input interfaces too. A sort of mental "firewall", if you will.
+1 internets to you
Confused about the random downvote there. Obviously someone thinks it's not ok to compliment folk on their linguistic inventiveness.
I've noticed downvotes (usually single) on harmless/innocuous comments on many occasions. I think there's a downvoting troll in here. Think of it as seeing traces of a rare and strange life-form.
Is this troll the same one that took away the "show this post's parent" link? Given as El Reg only has one level of indent, sometimes when there are replies to replies it can be confusing to figure out who is replying to what, exactly. And what's with seeing your own posts as a light grey "thumbs up"/"down" instead of the clearer green/red? Those trolls... been busy...
Not. The Internet is full of Trolls. Interesting phenotype maybe...sort of like a Troll Albino? Bur Trolls of many different phenotypes are abundant...
So do they remove it from Google maps, or do the come around and actually remove it?
"If you are worried about Street View and want your house removed, please contact Google and we will remove it."
Do I get to choose where they remove it to, or do they just put them all somewhere near Mountain View? I expect the Googleplex has a long driveway, but I'm guessing it'd soon fill up...
No you did not. What you did is to once again show just how much contempt you have for other people, Mr. Schmidt. You say these outrageous things because you believe them. When the inevitable reactions come rolling in, you pretend to do damage control - or try to.
But the damage is done, Mr. Schmidt. Your reputation is already cast in cement and the cement is dry. We know you now, and every blunder you make just confirms what an insensitive, emotionally-challenged individual you are.
The shameful thing is that a person like you has access to the personal lives of people.
The guys a fucking coward, if he told me face to face that if I didn't like what google are doing then I should sell my home, then well....I'd better not go into the physical detail of what might happen to him.
And yes commentards, I am aware of the irony.
"then you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing;"
...In the eyes of Google?
In there eyes would surely include acts such as using Bing or running ad-blockers. How utterly ridiculous...
The poor guy never grew out of the nerdy/awkward middle-schooler phase where everything out of his mouth was guaranteed to creep someone right the fuck out
I am well aware that getting ANY sort of contact information from Google is damn near impossible, it's usually "support forum" or nothing (the irony is a killer, it really is). But, you guys. Don't you have connections? Journalistic instincts? Surely there's at least ONE fax line in Mountain View?
Yeah. That was simple. Here you are: http://www.yellowpages.com/mountain-view-ca/mip/google-inc-7251679?lid=7251679
Fax it. Mail it. Phone to make sure it was received. Toss the ball into their court and see if they're man enough to face the critics.
Let me get this right. Google has taken a photograph of something outside (building, field, fence), from public land, at some point in the past, and made it available on the internet. Its a disgrace people should Google should not be allowed to take pictures in public places, no one should be allowed to take photos in a public place as we don’t know who they are working for and what they will do with the photos wont somebody think of the children ™
What’s that you say, the people who complain about Google Street View are the same as the ones who complain when the police tell them they can’t take photos in a public place, its ok for them to take photos of people and places and put them on the internet with out anyone’s permission. Next thing you know the pot will call the kettle black.
mes respects ..les plus sincères.
Ranting online maketh me less grouchy IRL. Though I do like it when my rants can provide a smile, or better yet cause someone to think.