I wonder if the reason they didn't want their faces shown was fear of peoples reactions as a result of overly inflammatory articles like these?
Edinburgh's Evening News has discovered that, when it comes to personal privacy, Google's Street View is a strictly one-way thoroughfare. The paper was alerted yesterday that several examples of the Orwellian spycar fleet were being prepared for action at a disused garage site in Drum Brae South. It duly dispatched a snapper …
was to identify himself.
Since he was not doing anything naughty, and the people who approached him had no powers to require his personal information, there was no reason for him to say anything to them. I suppose it's all part of the british (and/or scottish?) trait of giving in to people who present themselves as authoritative. Better, when faced with someone demanding information, is to ask them "who are you".
I spotted one of these sinister Orwellian spycars on my way to work today as it left Chesterfield, heading for the Peak District.
Sadly, by the time I had reached for my camera they had cloaked and engaged their hyperdrive, leaving only a faint impression of a black helicopter with the rotor-blades removed.
I thought I caught a brief glimpse of the driver - was it really Paris? I think we should be told.
Google makes its living by scraping people's websites (and blames the website operator if their excessive botting kills the site), yet objects strenuously to people scraping theirs.
Why should taking photos of people be any different?
Paris, 'cos she loves a good scraping. I hear.
If memory serves don't google blur faces?
Anyway if the dribbling psychotics here on the register comments boards are anything to go by then the Google guys do have something to worry about as the common man on the average street probably think that the cameras will eat their souls steal their babies and bomb their planes.
I'm really disappointed that an otherwise fantastic organisation is getting themselves involved in this tabloid overreaction of a non-story. So, Google are taking pictures of people's faces in the street and publishing them on the internet, so what? Passers by are filmed and photographed on a daily basis and their visages are beamed all over the world - are all newspapers, TV stations etc therefore evil privacy invaders too? I think not. And don't get me started on the Daily Mail's 'Burglar's Charter' angle - talk about scraping the barrel...
Yes no one likes having their picture taken, apart from narcissitic wallys, and of course anyone could find their security diminished if a picture is taken of them. That's sort of why no one really wants google to do this street view thing.
And those satellite photographs are a bit off as well. If someone was planning some sort of burgularly, invasion etc etc, kinda useful to not have to do reconnaisance by foot. Google steps over the line all the time, I think they should rebrand to Evil Geniuses Incorporated and be done with it.
You people realize that when you show up on a google picture for their streetview dealy it is because effectively got in the way? Nobody cares that you're in the picture. Everyone would prefer your ugly mug wasn't in the streetview picture. Unless you're sporting whale-tail or something interesting.
The story reads to me like the No2id guy was phoned up by the EEN hack:
"anythting to say about this?"
"we don't have a position on..."
"go on give us a quote"
"this happened. they threatened us"
"That is an extraordinary situation,.."
Not involved at all, IMO, just tapped for a quote and took the opportunity to give general points about organisations...
Google's whole Streetview mantra is that anything in plain view from a public street is fair game to photograph and publish on the web. They won't sue, so snap away and post away.
If the people working for google fear reprisals, then they should get another job. Their "fear" is because they know they are abusing the public.
in Aylesbury on Sunday afternoon...would have got a picture, if
a) I wasn't a woman and my phone hadn't have been buried at the bottom of my extremely capacious handbag holding the contents of my life
b) said phone had been anything other than a Jesusphone, and by the time I'd unlocked it, scrolled and opened the camera the car had vanished round the corner
c) because I'm too tight to buy a case I'm currently keeping it in a sock...which added valuable seconds to the time spent getting it out
d)that would have been irrelevant as I can't send sodding picture messages from said Jesusphone
Also, I think I'm going to have to stop reading El Reg, as no one I have told since has seemed half as excited about the sighting as I was...