back to article Bucks village repels Street View spycar

The Buckinghamshire village of Broughton has, for the time being, been spared the attentions of Google's all-seeing Street View, after locals repelled the advance of one of the search monolith's Orwellian black Opels. According to the Milton Keynes Citizen, "mutinous householders" mobilised on Wednesday as the spycar prepared …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    for the love of all that is holy..

    .. when the street view car takes your picture YOU ARE IN GOD DAMN PUBLIC. The side of your building is viewable TO THE PUBLIC. People need to stop being such god damn retards about this situation and release that by going INTO PUBLIC you lose the right to PRIVACY about where you god damn are.

    Or should i walk around with my eyes closed in case i offend someones privacy . God damn morons.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So privacy is good?

    "The good burghers of Broughton also called the police, but before they could arrived, the snoopmobile's operative decided to call it a day."

    Two things,

    One, Privacy is important! People want it, are you paying attention Google? Are you paying attention British prospective MPs who will be standing against NuLabour? Privacy is a vote winner!

    Two, I hope the rozzers would have arrested the protestors, since Google has as much right to drive down that road and photograph streets as anyone else. It's not *their* road. If they want something different, see point one, vote the NuLabour candidate out and vote the privacy candidate in.

  3. Steve

    Property values

    Leaving arguments about photography on public streets for others (and if it's the same Broughton I'm thinking of, it's a very olde-worlde village very popular with tourists - and their cameras), maybe Google should insert their own streetview images (with small print) that portray it as a downtrodden 3rd world slum community and see what that does to the property values and tourism? Or am I just being too cruel?

    Steve.

  4. Luis Ogando
    Stop

    Tw@s The Lot Of 'Em

    Christ on a bike! What makes this idiot believe his house is so damned good I (or anybody) would want to surf the 'net for a frigging picture?? There are more affluent areas in the UK for ne'er-do-wells to haunt if they feel so inclined.

    Until we have absolute confirmation that Streetview ACTUALLY increases crime I'll carry on using it for what it was intended for - subtle voyerism and checking out hot, blurry-faced birds on the high street.

    Stop, because that berk needs to!

  5. Andrew
    Alert

    So let me get this straight...

    "A Google spokeman told the Citizen that householders were "entitled" to request their properties be removed from Street View, but "only after the picture has appeared"."

    So if I take a picture of somebody's house but never publish it I'm not breaking the law? And if that picture happens to have a view of a naked woman in it (with her face blured of course) that too would be ok? Excelent. Time for some telephoto 'nature' photography then. ;-)

  6. Paul

    I don't like street view...

    but it sounds more like they were braking the law.

  7. Nick
    Coat

    Now't as Queer as Folk..

    They don't like it up 'em, isn't it wasn't it...

    So with this hitting newsstands, makes it known that this hamlet of affluence is just that. Why not move to Yorkshire - its grim up there, and as such means you won't get burglarised because they're all down south...

    Coat please, with extra flame retardance.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Blocking the highway or summat

    I've a feeling if the fuzz HAD arrived they'd have had to disperse the locals as they were obstructing the driver from using a public road.

    Though of course if they're using a camera then they might be a terrorist and so fair-game for any "reasonable" response plod felt was necessary! Bang-bang-bang.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Streisand effect?

    Have they not heard of the Streisand effect? Anyone nearby who can upload some photos of what we are missing?

  10. Admiral Grace Hopper

    Went The Day Well?

    I look forward to Google posting the pics resulting from this confrontation. Where does one buy a pitchfork and burning torch these days?

  11. FathomsDown
    Stop

    So....

    So having Google Streetview images of your property assists crime but telling the press that you live in an affluent area which has seen a number of burglaries (ie you live in an area where the houses are easy to burgle) doesn't?

    Somehow I think more burglars read the tabloids than use Streetview.

  12. TeeCee Gold badge
    Happy

    Crikey!

    I can't believe you wrote that without using the phrase "Git orf moi laaand" at least once.

    It's in the countryside you know......

  13. Stef
    Coat

    Eejits

    An affluent area populated by cretins eh?

    I'll get my... balaclava.

  14. M Anton
    Stop

    So are these muppets...

    also going to sue Panoramio, sorry Google for the pictures that have been posted on there by members of the public who subscribe to service? Oh hang on..................

    One of the cars went past me this morning in Crawley but I didn't have an opportunity to 'wave' as it went by ;-)

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    They started it...

    Didn't the yanks invent "we don't like strangers in this town" or have I been watching Westerns to no benefit?

    Of course what these householders were doing were developing their own form of opt-in process to supplement googles flawed opt-out.

    After all you can only opt-out if you have access to and the ability to use the internet to get to the "offending" picture of your gaff. As such it is blantantly discriminatory to those of the older generations who are not silver surfers.

    At least you aren't exposed to adverts while using streetview - if you were you could argue the photographry was for commercial purposes.

    use of "mutinous" is a bit strong, we're not officially under the control of google yet are we. I'd have gone for vigilante if they'd torched the vehicle rather raising the voices at the driver.

  16. John Bayly
    Thumb Down

    Google should capitulate

    No streetview: can see what houses look like

    No aerial photos: can see how big the gardens are, how many cars & whether the're plenty of stuff out back.

    No maps: enable burglars to get directions to their houses.

    Simple, google can make this place not exist by placing a black rectangle over the area with a caption "Here there be dragons", and I for one would love to see that happen.

    As for complaining about it being an affluent area, it's a fucking suburb of Milton Keynes, in fact Broughton is now what I'd call an estate, not a village. Simple way of telling, all the houses are identical.

    I hate sounding like a snob, but the first picture I have of these people are them being the epitome of nouveau rich. The photo of some cock on a jet-ski says it all:

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=broughton&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB291GB291&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    morons

    Now it IS news and with some luck it might make it (with pictures) to some front page also...

    .. perhaps a reportage by the BBC would be in place, live interviews and some filmfootage to explain the issue to interested viewers?

    :-)

    Good thinking this...? So taking pictures on a public road is a private matter - it certainly shows the level of their thinking ability. .. or lack of it.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Only in America...

    ...or, in this case, the United Kingdom.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Far more likely use is ...

    ... the one I've been using Street View for - checking out neighbourhoods and properties of places advertised for rent/sale. Indispensable aid for learning whether or not a place is worth a look.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    Well....

    now we've got that out of our systems, I think that all the stuff about public and photographs only applies to those taken for non commercial purposes.

    I seem to recall somewhere in the dim and distant past I read that for commercial purposes one can licence individuals and companies to take photographs for commercial purposes and those not licensed are in breach of some form of right that goes with the property. Don't know but perhaps one of our lawyer friends could shed some light.

    I know that if one tries to sell aphotograph to one of the agencies that 'features' a particular building or individual, rather than includes them as a minor part of the picture, most of the agencies require a release form signed by the owner of the property or of the individual.

    Now that could be interesting if it is the case.

  21. BoldMan
    Go

    Looking forward to a Playmobile reconstruction

    Assuming the Playmobile people don't sue ElReg for actually owning and USING their product! Heaven forbid!

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    I Wee'd myself

    "Jacobs concluded: “This is an affluent area. We’ve already had three burglaries locally in the past six weeks. If our houses are plastered all over Google it’s an invitation for more criminals to strike. I was determined to make a stand, so I called the police.”"

    Oh get over yourself. If you really where as affluent as you say you would have better security...

    Mines the one with the Camera in the pocket

  23. Dave
    Pirate

    Logic

    "A Google spokeman told the Citizen that householders were "entitled" to request their properties be removed from Street View, but "only after the picture has appeared"."

    If I am entitled to have it removed, I see no reason why I should inform them in advance, and be entitled to not have it appear in the first place.

  24. Bod

    Prat

    "Resistance leader Paul Jacobs explained: “I was upstairs when I spotted the camera car driving down the lane. My immediate reaction was anger; how dare anyone take a photograph of my home without my consent? I ran outside to flag the car down and told the driver he was not only invading our privacy but also facilitating crime.”"

    Utter Nimbyism combined with FUD (privacy bit) and an outright lie (crime bit).

    These people have far more to fear from the local council using anti-terrorism laws to spy on them whilst they fill their bins, along with the hordes off CCTV that they seem perfectly happy to accept "invading" their privacy... in public.

    The only fear from Google they've got is if they've been cheating on their other halves and get spotted by the camera. If they're in public they have just as much chance that someone could have spotted them anyway.

    Dumbasses.

  25. GT
    Go

    Right then, me hearties.

    Grab your swag bags and let's head on down to Broughton. Never heard of it before but now, thanks to the thoughtful residents, I realise it's affluent. Rich pickings, I reckon.

  26. Paul

    Crying wolf

    Now what we need are lots of people with similar black cars willing to have a box on a pole attached to their car to drive into this place.

  27. Tim Hines
    Black Helicopters

    It's a bit late!

    Too late, Microsoft Live has some very clear bird's eye view of Broughton Village:

    http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=sp7r30gy7tm6&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=22145223&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&where1=milton%20keynes&encType=1

    Interesting parking (see top left) ...

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    hum.

    "So if I take a picture of somebody's house but never publish it I'm not breaking the law? And if that picture happens to have a view of a naked woman in it (with her face blured of course) that too would be ok?"

    I think taking a picture of someones house is allowed, i think you can basically take a picture of anything you want (except the obvious 1 exception)

    If the lady was in her house in front of the window with teh curtains open then its kinda her fault, as everyone on the street would be able to see as well (or any double decker busses/coachs), i think actually the girl might be the one in trouble there, indecent exposer.

  29. Someone

    Hypocrites

    I’ve just seen the story on the BBC. The BBC turned up with a film crew and the good burghers of Broughton don’t appear to have lynched the cameraman.

  30. Paul Berry
    Thumb Down

    Jacobs concluded: “This is an affluent area."

    That'll be the reason for the break-ins then. Duh.

  31. The Fuzzy Wotnot
    Thumb Up

    Good on them!

    'A Google spokeman told the Citizen that householders were "entitled" to request their properties be removed from Street View, but "only after the picture has appeared".'

    No! If I ask for something not be there in the first place, that amounts to the same ultimate goal, not present under any circumstances! Do you understand?

    Why can't we have the choice in the first place? I bet if I went stomping residential streets taking snaps for a new internet startup I had just formed, you'd all call Mr Plod and I'd get a good drubbing down the cop-shop before tea-time! 'Cos it's good old friendly Google, everybody's mate, they'd never do anything to hurt us, they're bestest friend a user of the internet could have, the khaki cargo-pants wearing, Apple fanbois, Web v3.0 trendies are all up for it!

    NO! They are another huge faceless corporation, just like Uncle Steve Jobs and the Church of Apple and while I use their both Apple and Google services and products, I am still mindful that they don't abuse the trust we all put in them!

    Keep 'em peeled!

  32. Eponymous Cowherd
    Dead Vulture

    Reg beaten to Google story by Metro *again* shocker!

    You really are letting the side down, you know.

  33. This post has been deleted by its author

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Paul Jacobs is an iDiot

    HE called the Police! I do hope they dealt with the Obstruction to the Public Highway correctly!

    Taking Photos Is NOT a Crime - Obstructing the Highway is!

    Off to Photo this tits house and sell it to the Media! exclusive! What Paul Jacobs doesn't want you to see.. Hes got a front door and a car!

    Hey do you see me jumping up and down about El'Reg using my picture on thier streetview snappers article.. they only need my permission if itys for comercial gain.. hmm advertising articles.....

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I say

    I say we all go to the dick heads house and take photos of it.

    I also suggest that inplace of these bland dumps google put exciting in their place on street view - like wobbly vibrators, or run down chemical plants.

    cocks.

  36. Neil Hoskins
    Stop

    The "village" of Broughton my arse

    It's part of Milton Keynes. And I can already see his poxy "affluent area" on Google Earth, thank you very much. His house is quite clear. They should really treat themselves to a new patio set: teak is so 'last year'. And they seem to be drinking... what's that... *Tesco* chardonnay... ewwwww......

  37. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: for the love of all that is holy..

    Can we not be quite so over-caffeinated about this? You've got to admit that the definition of privacy is shifting, surely, and while it's not necessarily a problem it bears examination. People might be getting in an undue flap but it's important to monitor these things. Dismissing their concerns out of hand with a hand slapped to the forehead doesn't make for the kind of thoughtful perspective we should try to take about this and most issues.

    Although it seems fair enough to say that on this occasion it's an outbreak of uninformed nimbyism by pompous Mail-reading surburban dopes.

  38. Lionel Baden
    Paris Hilton

    cool

    nice to see people standing up for what they believe in

    To many people take it lying down

    paris well did you see the above sentance

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Umm, the blurring doesn't work

    I think its obvious from this photo I found in about 10 seconds that the blurring does not work sufficiently (no it's not a photo of me, it's totally random):

    http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&q=birmingham,+uk&ie=UTF8&split=0&ei=p_nVSfCWHZvQjAfV262KDw&ll=52.482467,-1.894069&spn=0.007749,0.022745&z=16&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=52.482386,-1.894164&panoid=8-b3kI81F8SkFq81qAeHfQ&cbp=12,352.0328359070418,,2,13.150943396226427

  40. Marc Savage

    lucky...

    They are lucky plod did not do them for blocking teh queens highway.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Engadget version of events

    http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/angry-british-villagers-block-google-street-view-car-incident-c/

  42. Steve

    “This is an affluent area"

    Saying “This is an affluent area" is in itself 'an invitation for more criminals to strike'

    Note to self: next place to loot is Broughton, start with Paul Jacobs!

    Dumbass!

    I hope the Google car went back and got the shots!

  43. Martin Lyne

    Er

    Maybe it was a typo

    "This is an effluent area", they were stopping the spymobile from getting all smelly and gooey.

    Or maybe they were just proving themselves to be knee-jerk reactionist ignorati.

    YOU DECIDE!

  44. Lottie

    prats

    If the road was private, I guess they could have told the driver where to go, but if it wasn't, isn't obstruction of the highway an offence that lets the police club the shit out of you these days?

  45. Secretgeek
    Flame

    Double standards.

    I'd have a lot more respect for this bunch of irate middle-englanders if it wasn't so blatantly obvious that they were only concerned with themselves and couldn't give a toss about the general moral issue of privacy and Google.

    Obviously a bunch of 'not on my doorstep' types that are quite happy for all the scumsvilles to get photo'd so long as it doesn't intrude on their particular part of this green and unpleasant land.

    Tossers.

  46. Hedley Phillips

    I want my House to be on Streetview

    I wish we were lucky enough to be inlcuded on Streetview.

  47. FlatSpot
    Thumb Up

    Think there is a town/rural divide maybe?

    I'm with the locals on this one.

    If a burglar is casing a joint during the day, you might notice them loitering about and clock their license plate number.

    If you think Police response times are shite in a town or city you should try calling them when you are 15 miles out of town. Not forgetting when you are pretty isolated to start with and their are fewer eyes and hands about to help or notice anything etc.

    F8ck google, life can continue without their perv maps....just buy a bloody GPS if you are so crap at finding a street!

  48. Simon Painter
    Thumb Up

    @FathomsDown

    Spot on and you beat me to it... all they have done is drawn attention to themselves. I think I might pop over there at the weekend with my camera and put the whole place on my blog.

  49. Richard
    Paris Hilton

    Nobody is stupid

    These people come close though.

    Is a burglar not going to rob your house because it doesn't appear on google maps?

    3 burglaries in the last 6 weeks, and that's before they were shown on google maps, I wonder if the burglars knew the houses were there when they set out to rob them or if they just stumbled across them, oh look a house let's rob it.

    I think they should be left alone there, with nobody visiting them, postmen, dustbin men, any utilities suppliers, etc. in their nice little hamlet where nobody can see their affluent houses because they don't appear on google street view.

    Bunch of morons, the burglars are going to be laughing at this, typically the criminals aren't particularly bright in terms of book smarts, but they know where the money is and they can see houses without the aid of google.

    Paris because it's a nice place with albeit with an odour problem.

  50. Dean
    Unhappy

    Evil Google Maps

    I don't blame these people.

    I was randomly looking at Google maps last night and was looking at an industrial estate in Leeds where I found 5 number plates that Google's 'excellant' software has missed.

    I have been playing with the idea, once my house is on their system to write to Google with a cheque and ask them under the Data Protection Act to remove all images of me and my car.

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    try that excuse at Google HQ

    ... being on public land is little defense when snapping them.

    Down with this assuption of opt-in... in all forms... ask me FIRST damnit.

  52. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    My Streetview of shame...

    A BBC correspondent decided to join in the viral fanfare of the launch of Google Street View

    and publish a small zoomed in photo of their own house (thereby, trying not to give too much

    away), but taken directly from Google Street View.

    It might not seem like it but they were in effect publishing their Postcode on the internet.

    Google Street view has an interesting side effect - the ability to verify other

    information/show differences over time.

    By matching this photo back to Google Street view someone is able verify a postcode. So by

    innocently publishing a picture of your house (the key here is an image taken directly from

    Street View) you have in effect published your full postcode.

    There are millions of photos on Google Street View, but once you have you image match you

    have the postcode. By using publicly available information I was able to narrow this search

    down.

    It took only three searches - yes three (and a bit of lateral thinking) to get their

    postcode and match this to the image - thus verifying the postcode.

    From there you are able to nose around the neighbourhood.

    With the verified postcode I was able to obtain Council Tax Banding/Price range, list of recent house price sales in that street.

    Find out nearest tube stop, 15min route to work, train times, time between trains. (BBC

    Television Centre being the main place of work)

    The car they drive, a well known hybrid - the fact it has a BBC Car parking sticker, giving

    access to the BBC Car park. Other website information gained their personal gmail, telephone

    number - and from this - the Broadband they use, and from what company.

    Found their facebook account, their partners facebook account, links to other family

    members. Their twitter account.

    Thankfully this was all in the aid of research.

    But People should really think twice about giving information out too 'loosely'.

    An example, its your Birthday, your out a pub, you mention your name and the car you drive.

    118500.com, 192.com allow this information to cross referenced to information online such as

    the phonebook, a quick check with google street view, and there is that car they were

    talking about - verified postcode (and date of birth). Yes there might be ten 'Jones' in your area - but each one can be checked.

    Say you were a marketing/advertising company, which Google is - this is being done semi-

    automatically for all of us.

    Maybe this image / (and its Satellite equivalent) will get updated every two years, but say

    in time - this becomes once year, then every six months and eventually weekly - or even

    daily. How about hourly with a local car in each area that just drives around as the

    technology gets cheaper, replacing traffic wardens. At what point does it become

    unacceptable (if at all). What if each previous image is available to be compared.

    If this was a 'paid for Government programme' paying a private company (Google) to implement this (spending on counter-surveillance as Gov call it) - would we be so happy about it and where is the point it become an invasion of privacy if it isn't now. After all the

    information is available to everyone, but profiling and targeting can be done far better

    paid organisations/councils/government with such resources and cross-linking/verifying data

    they already hold. An this is the key, verifying information they already hold about you -

    little snippets become facts, building up to be gigsaw puzzle.

    The resolution of images used for street view / sat imaging could actually be far higher

    than being used by the street view software (50MPixels or higher per image), to give the

    appearance that you can't really see much, yet internal versions of the software could be

    more revealing, and updated much more regularly.

    If Google had kept this information internally for their own marketing means wouldn't we all

    be up in arms? But by being 'in on it' is like taking part in some Police raid - doing our

    own surveillance - we accept it -

    Link this to the Government being share data between departments - you in effect create the

    carrot and the stick approach. The services you are able to receive, become dependent on

    your ability to be a 'responsible' citizen, the less responsible the more stick.

    You can raise and lower the bar, hitting enough heads to generate enough revenue as people

    go about their daily lives, similar to trying navigate an obstacle course getting time

    penalties along the way. Like setting lower speed limits than really necessary or

    implementing average speed cameras to provide blanket cover. Humans make errors - its a revenue stream.

    Jackie Smith, Home Secretary said a few days ago:

    'Even where organisations do not break the law, they can expect to be openly challenged if

    they advocate actions which go against British traditions of democracy, tolerance, free

    speech and human rights'

    Its an interesting statement which I can't get my head around - it doesn't sit well as a

    statement - there is an underlying issue with it.

    - especially if you class the government as encompassing the traditions of democracy, as

    Jackie Smith surely does.

    You would be naive to assume that the collection of this data is solely for the benefit of society as a whole.

  53. Geoff Mackenzie

    Blurs number plates?

    Street View's number plate blurring is a bit patchy I find. There's a classic van in my street with a black number plate that has no blur effect on it at all. If it was mine I'd be pretty annoyed with Google (but I would also own a pretty awesome van, which would cheer me up).

  54. Andy Livingstone

    Roundabout now

    When last seen the Google car was still driving repeatedly around Milton Keynes looking for the way out.

  55. Skizz

    Shooting at planes...

    So, will the good citizens of Broughton be shooting down Microsoft's bird's eye view camera planes: http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=Broughton+&countryCode=GB#map=52.05045,-0.69378|20|256&be=22145255|North&bd=useful_information&loc=GB:52.05036:-0.69336:14|Broughton%20|Broughton,%20Milton%20Keynes,%20Buckinghamshire,%20England,%20MK10%209. I think this is far worse than street view as it shows the back gardens which are usually obscured from public view.

    I wonder which house is Mr Jacobs?

    Skizz

  56. Tom

    oh noes, not moor camraz!!

    Jacobs concluded: “This is an affluent area. We’ve already had three burglaries locally in the past six weeks. If our houses are plastered all over Google it’s an invitation for more criminals to strike. I was determined to make a stand, so I called the police.”

    Well if he lives that close to a sewage works, i'm not suprised he's angry, oh, wait a minute....

    @AC 11:42 I see you have office 2007, the space and tabbing options are in the top left task panel ;)

  57. Piers

    Perspective...

    From the BBC...

    In a statement Google said ...

    "We were careful to ensure that all images abide by UK law. Imagery is taken on public property and is no different from what any person can readily capture or see walking down the street."

    Actually, Google are using specialist equipment to collect a mass of information for *comercial* purposes. Clearly *not* what any person can readily capture or see walking down the street. If people want to take pictures of your property (or you) for *comercial* reasons, then other rules apply.

    They also link the images directly to a geographical location rather than 'somewhere in wherever'. The privacy implications are rather more complex than people seem to realise. Some people are unhappy about this and shrugging off the larger picture (so to speak) just cause you're biased against them won't take this away. Opt In is clearly completely fair and should be applied in this case - ahhh, but that would be too hard to implement, wouldn't it Google?

  58. Peyton

    a suggestion

    We've had several cities laid bare by Streetview state-side for some time now. Many of these cities also publish crime data - free of charge - to the web. In fact, the city I live in has a convenient mashup of the two already. Maybe someone would be so kind as to plot out the data on some "affluent areas" for these people?(I nominate the AC #1 :) Just a hunch, but I think we'd find the crime 'growth curve' to be flat...

  59. Marco van Beek
    Pirate

    Re: They started it...

    "At least you aren't exposed to adverts while using streetview - if you were you could argue the photography was for commercial purposes."

    No, but Google is a commercial enterprise, and arguably the only reason they are doing is to attract users that they can exploit at a later date. Don't forget they charge $400 for Google Earth Pro. So at some point I am assuming they will come up with Street View Pro, and if you couple that with some clever image searching tools, I could come up with all sorts of clever uses, like the name on alarm housings, or houses without double glazing. Maybe StreetViewPro+ won't even have to have blurred faces if it isn't "publicly" accessible. Maybe the next generation of spam will be personalised: "We noticed you have a small <insert name of appendage>. You need our pills if you want to avoid getting slapped by Mrs Miggins next door again...."

    So I say, it is for commercial gain, even if that gain is long term, and therefore should be treated as such, and as a minimum if we are captured on film we should be asked to sign a release, aka opt-in.

    Also, if all our faces are blurred, then if there is some poor person out there with a blurred face for real, could they sue Google for misappropriation of identity (or maybe that is US law only) and/or libel, as the site would show them throwing up, hitting someone, smoking illegally, etc?

  60. Clint Sharp
    Paris Hilton

    F*king luddites.

    Bet sales of the Daily Mail are sky high in Broughton.

    Of course, instead of having to stumble over the place on Google it's now plastered all over the national media, the residents have admittted their security is pants and that they are well to do so let's see that crime rate soar.

    Paris, well, like duh....

  61. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    The definition of privacy

    is not shifting, any more than the definition of 'duck' would shift if some corporation were to slap wings and beaks onto pigs and get away with it because the government was too corrupt to stop them and the public too stupid to care.

  62. This post has been deleted by its author

  63. Richard

    Google Earth

    Yep read all of the comments, I think I'm aligned with the majority in thinking this lot are a bunch of nobs. Simply put, as others have put before me, Public and Private are different things, google earth is more intrusive than street view as it gives a view on peoples back gardens, previously these may once have been considered "private" property, street view is just taking photos where anyone can take a photo, in otherwords, the "public" domain.

    Crap did I just do that stupid quotey thing, almost as bad as air quotes.

  64. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    More people saw his house on TV than on Streetview

    The guy who didn't want his house appearing on Streetview for all and sundry to see was standing in front of his house whilst being interviewed on the BBC. So now even more people know what his house looks like than if he kept kept quiet.

    Numpty!

  65. FathomsDown

    @Simon Painter

    You and me both.

    "Photo Paul Jacobs's house" flashmob anyone? ;-)

  66. James Pickett
    Happy

    Own goal

    I look forward to seeing Broughton on the BBC news tonight...

  67. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Insurance against Street View photography

    Hire a Copper to stand outside your house.

    They can't be photographed!!

  68. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Andrew

    It doesn't matter.

    They are not actually entitled to have the image removed. Google are not doing anything wrong by photographing the area, street, house etc.

  69. Seán

    Zap them

    Broughton should be removed from maps, google earth, and streetview and replaced by a nice tight closeup of goatse.

  70. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    good for them

    Google has been known to attempt to stop people from taking pictures of the HQ and the plod here has been known to arrest people who take pictures of them (in public) or public buildings. So what is wrong with these villagers here who has not fallen for the google charm offensive like many hypocrites here?

  71. graeme leggett

    Google delusion

    Google say "......is no different from what any person can readily capture or see walking down the street"

    Are there a lot of ten-footers in googleland? I'm sure if I went down the street with a stepladder and stopped every once in a while to climb up it and take pictures, Mr Plod the Policeman would soon be stopping by to enquire as to my motives.

    And as a last thought, why if google does no evil do they using black cars and not white ones?

  72. David
    Stop

    @ Piers

    "If people want to take pictures of your property (or you) for *commercial* reasons, then other rules apply."

    What rules would those be?

  73. Stewart Haywood

    @Umm, the blurring doesn't work

    I looked at this and thought "it's a bit dark". I then looked around the area and found that moving only a few yards makes the difference between daytime and almost night. Is the earth radius different in Birmingham I wonder? Could it be that Google has the same problem as the city council and some of the photos are from Birmingham England an others from Birmingham Alabama but all taken at the same time?

  74. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    get a grip

    if you don't have a problem with cameras on every street corner (and now pub entrance), what's the big deal about on a car top?

  75. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Evil Empire

    http://www.onzin.com/video/google_is_watching_you.html

  76. David Barrett Silver badge

    Hmmm not sure about this...

    Dont think that I trus live earth...

    http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=52.872337~1.328249&style=r&lvl=12&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=22145223&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&where1=nr11%208tr&encType=1

    I dont live here any more, but Im pretty sure that when I did the north sea was not that close... unless this is the result of global warming?

  77. David Barrett Silver badge
    Coat

    Ok, my fault

    I take it back that link was ok.. .some thing weird happened on my pc and the pointer was placed a few miles off the coast...

    Nothing to see here move along...

    [OR Reg... You dont need to post either of these posts from me!]

  78. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nah

    I'm often accused of being a little too paranoid. I'd never live in the UK due to all your CTV cameras. I don't think there's anything wrong with google street view. At worst it makes it slightly easier for a criminal to case a house. Of course, not nearly as well as if they were to drive by and look themselves, and some might argue that leaves a bigger piece of evidence, but I don't really agree. No real difference from using a map, in my mind.

  79. Camilla Smythe Silver badge

    Present law was...

    Not set up to deal with circumstances such as this. Google is relying on its interpretation of law as things stand, to its advantage. I don't know how things stand with this one but it would seem that a common argument would be that Google are using the public highway and therefore etc.

    However

    Whilst I might have payed my taxes, road council and all the rest, so I might have a road outside my house which I might use to get to work to earn the money to pay those taxes and feel quite happy about others using that road for the same purpose I am going to draw the line when it comes to Google freeloading off my 'public' highway.

    I paid for it to be there and these people try and justify the right to pimp off it and beyond its boundaries by telling me I can ask them not to after the event.

    At this level it is a privacy issue and beyond that, although it should not have reached this stage, I would like to know how much Google have backhanded those concerned and how many of the potholes in the road outside my house will be fixed from the provided backhanders. Perhaps I am being naive by thinking that Google will make a profit from the exercise.

    I'll say it again in case you have missed the point.

    As far as I should be concerned I pay my taxes to have a road outside my house on which I can drive my car to get to work to earn some money to pay those taxes. Others do the same and I get to drive on their roads as well. This, and in a more extended sense, is what roads are for.

    However I do not pay that money for Google to use the roads to Pimp My House.

    I will give fair warning, which is more than they appear to be able to do. Turn up on my street and I will burn your car. If you wish to complain then you will have to wait until I have burned it before you do so and I will assume that whatever I used to burn it in the first place has gone.

  80. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It the meeja again

    You only have to look at the villagee to realise that the place is just stuffed with Torygraph, Fail and Excess readers. This wasn't a protest about privacy, it was just a demonstration that mob behaviour is influenced, nay created, by the popular meeja.

    If they really were interested in protecting their privacy would they have welcomed the massed great British meeja with open arms. It was hilarious to see some cock on the ten o'clock news protesting with no apparent sense of irony that Street View was an invasion of his privacy. So how many people would be interested in seeing his house on Google Snoop? And how many people saw his house on the news?

    As for their trumpeted victory over Google, do they not realise that the cars will slip quietly down their road one day when they are not looking? And once the pictures do hit the interweb the news will spread like wildfire and they will be archived all over the place before the residents can send their takedown notices to Google.

    The supreme irony of all this is, however, the meeja's reporting. There they were photographing and filming the village while apparently supporting the villagers' protests. Furthermore the BBC while once more apparently supporting the need for privacy reported that Google will take down images if requested, and then showed two images which have been removed. So it's not OK for Google to show them, but it's fine for the BBC to broadcast the to millions and archive them on iPlayer? Interesting. Does this mean that if the BBC broadcast on their rolling news channel or website pictures that include me or my house they will cease and desist should I so request? Of course it bloody doesn't.

    Google have become part of the popular media, although the popular media don't seem to have realised it yet. It pains me to admit it, but Google are being quite reasonable when compared to the traditional media companies. I suspect that the reason the news media are so keen to attack Google on this is that they think Google's stance on take down notices and face and numberplate blurring could set a dangerous precedent for them. How would it be if the news media had to jumpt though similar hoops? If Google are allowed to continue being reasonable then people may expect the rest of the media to reasonable too. Can you imagine the Dirty Digger being so reasonable?

  81. This post has been deleted by its author

  82. This post has been deleted by its author

  83. Sceptical Bastard

    Daily Mail? WTF?

    To everyone praising the brave new dawn of Google's uninvited snooping, you don't have to be Luddite, reactionary or a Daily Mail reader to object to a huge and increasingly-powerful 'Murcann corporation adding its lenses to the mass of surveillance we already suffer under.

    We should take a stand against intrusion into privacy wherever it occurs and whoever the intruder. Supporting Google's 'right' to prostitute us on StreetView is akin to welcoming ID cards, something El Reg commentards seem rather less enthusiastic about. Wake up! If information about you (and your home) can be collected and collated, it can also be misused against you and your best interest - and, given time, history shows it will be.

    So to anyone who offers the dangerous but seductive "nothing-to-hide, nothing-to-fear" argument, think of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Kampuchea or, much nearer home, Mister Jacqui Smith's films and his missus's expense sheet.

    Google, like Phorm, seems to think 'all your privacy are belong to us'. SteetView is one invasion too many. Phuck off, Google - do not want.

  84. Bod

    Re: Evil Google Maps

    Your number plates are available for all to see on the street anyway, and registration details are available for any of the public to get.

    Given the vast amount of images on Street View, the audience for your particular number plates and anything else related to you is going to be very small, unless you draw attention to it, are in some way in the public eye, or live in a famous area. Probably less people will be viewing those images than all the people who walk and drive up and down your street every day!

    That's what people don't get. Just because the images are there, doesn't mean everyone's going to look at them. It's not like publishing those photos in a national newspaper (or even a local newspaper).

  85. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    United action needed?

    If everyone can have their property removed on request, why not organise joint action?

    Everyone in the street sign undated letters demanding removal of their property, and nominate someone to watch Google for when the photos appear...

    PS what happens to 360 views if the owners of the property on the other side of the street demands it should be removed?

  86. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Arrrr.....

    "The good burghers of Broughton also called the police" as they believed the magic box was stealing their souls...

  87. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @AC: I'd never live in the UK due to all your CTV cameras

    Someone ran into my car on Sunday while it was parked, in what appears to be the only spot in the UK without CCTV. You could go and live there?

  88. Lionel Baden

    Hang on ...

    What happens if you live in a flat or a terrace

    1 person there doesnt like it the entire block is missing or what ???

  89. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    I think most of the comments are by ignorant Daily Mail Readers

    In a lot of cases (IMO of course) 'like encourages like', so I suppose it is spectacularly unsurprising that the immature and often ridiculous comments in response to this article made here already are by people who are pro Google (The Google Aye!'ers) and anti anyone who is percieved to oppose Google's progress...because the Church of Google is synonomous with technological progress. The irony is that the barkers are referring to the protesters as Daily Mail readers when in fact their own bigoted, right-wing notions make them more likely to classified as such.

    Oh yes, and of course, because the people being hounded are apparently wealthy they lose their voice in this everso exciting age of digital democracy....yawn. And how predictable that anyone percieved to be in anyway privilged, whether they are really or not, which doesn't actually matter, becomes a target for abuse.

    The tirades from the Tribe of Morons (those allarmingly wise technorati that have bludgeoned themselves into believing that they've got a handle on how things are now and will be in the future, but are actually feeble minded trend following illiterati) is sadly an expectation that is nearly always met.

    Even though I'm not wealthy and don't live in an 'affluent' area I still object (on principle) to Google snapping the inside of my front room from the road and the inside of my garage. It's just plane rude. I fully support those people's opposition to the seeming insult to their privacy. If this incident had been on a Council estate in the UK no doubt the protesters would have been labelled ignorant benefit scroungers without the capacity to comprehend progress. It doesn't matter though, you lose if you are up against the desperately ignorant majority (those that believe they are enlightened), and if you are unlucky enough to have been born with an ounce of common sense and forward thinking and you dare to speak out in opposition against something the majority want there's a very high probability now that you're going to suffer the retribution of Internet vigilantes, those toilet inhabiting bacteria that have taken it upon themselves to torment anyone they themselves decide is worthy of their perverse and abberant attention...

    As I rarely add to the already overflowing toliet of digital opinion this minor outburst is out of the ordinary for me. But I feel better already though. It doesn't actually matter what occurs in response to my blurting now. Once you've contributed to the toliet your waste gets processed in the same way as all the other crap in there.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019