Brit celebs' homes VANISH from Google's Street View Google is scrubbing out the homes of Blighty's rich and famous from its nosey Street View site. It has been reported that the likes of former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Beatle Paul McCartney and Led Zeppelin axeman Jimmy Page have had their houses blurred on the mapping service. Popstar Lily Allen and former RBS …
Maybe the house hasn't been blurred by Google at all. Maybe it's just the crowds of ghosts of Iraqi children floating outside the house that gives that impression. I think they should probably try driving the Street View car by another time when Blair is not at home to be sure.
unless the mansion has a large sign outside saying "Tony Bliar Lives here" what is the point of blurring it? How would real people using streetview have any idea who lives in a particular mansion (unless someone had kindly spray-painted "Alleged war criminal lives here" on the wall).
Blurring number-plates and faces is reasonable - it's individually identifiable info, but a house?
Is this the start of a nice new website - "blurryhouses.com" that has photos of all the blurred houses on Streetview, plus a nice searchable index of who lives there? Much more of a problem to the 'celebs' than just being buried anonymously in Streetview. Streisand effect?
The whole point of installing an alarm system is that outsiders are aware that you have one, because you want to prevent anyone breaking in and instead choose an easier target. Say, one house that does not have a plaque visibly proclaiming that the place has an alarm system?
In fact, I don't have hard data to back it up, but I seriously feel that you can install the alarm plaque alone and get 98% of the benefits of having the full alarm system at a fraction of the price. You have either to be a very idiot burglar or target a really high value house to risk attempting a break in whenever an alarm *could* be installed.
Of course if that becomes fashionable, every house will have an alarm plaque, installed alarm or not, and then (a) the effectivity of having an alarm system will be greatly reduced because it will only help to prevent robbery, but not the break in damage and (b) alarm makers will create some other kind of way of advertising that a place is protected, which in turn will be copied and so on...
Don't think alarm makers are thrilled with that line of thinking, however.
That is one of the most ridiculous reasons for blurring your house I have heard. I could understand an open garage door (which normally remains closed) showing off a nice shiny bit of equipment or expensive motorbike, for instance, but any burglar can already see the alarm from the street, surely?
If it was considered a risk why not just spray over the logo or cover it up?
Almost every security device (locks, alarms etc) advertise who the manufacturer is to try to deter thieves...
That is one of the most ridiculous reasons for blurring your house I have heard. I could understand an open garage door (which normally remains closed) showing off a nice shiny bit of equipment or expensive motorbike, for instance, but any burglar can already see the alarm from the street, surely?
The ability to assess the risks of breaking into a house beforehand instead of having to take a look locally minimises the risk of being spotted casing the place or appearing on local CCTV beforehand. Such blurring should be mandatory.
Wrote :- "The ability to assess the risks of breaking into a house beforehand instead of having to take a look locally ....... Such blurring should be mandatory."
I am not sure this isn't an attempt at humour. The Google street view is equivalent to a glance, nothing that cannot be done by someone walking past with a phone camera for example. Practically everyone who walks past a house these days is waving a phone around anyway.
Nope.. still none the wiser.
Are you telling me that one of these houses is Tony Blairs?
Wrote :- "Could that also explain the double yellow lines both sides of the road across the frontage of this house and not the others in the street?"
I noticed that too. There seems be no other reason for it other than allowing his limo to pull in to pick him up, and making anyone else who pulls up look suspect.
Mind you, it must piss off the neighbours for one house on each side because they are left with nowhere to park.
It's got partly to do with the fact that Google's *cough* respect for your privacy included making it possible to zoom in to windows of premises.
In general:
"Your privacy and security are important to us," the ad giant claims in its Ts&Cs.
"The Google Maps team takes a number of steps to help protect the privacy and anonymity of individuals when images are collected for Street View, including blurring faces and license plates.
Sure, that's why they mounted the cameras on stalks so they could look over fences that were perfectly fine for normal privacy purposes, something that strangely/sadly only got them into trouble in Japan.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
How long before a new crowdsourced website crops up to show what all the blurred properties look like - FROM A PUBLIC ROAD ?
Some people just don't seem to get it. Yet more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect in action.
Wouldn't fancy standing opposite the blurry one in Connaught Square with a camera for too long; probably asking for an invitation to discuss the finer points of the rights of the citizen in a democracy, while undergoing a cavity search...
AFAIK there is no legal basis to prevent you from making pictures there, but you're right, they could make up some BS story. My problem with doing that myself is that I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to personal privacy, and as it's his home I would go against my own ethics to make pictures there. This is the conflict between seriously not liking this guy but having to stand up for principles I believe in.
I guess people will have to go back to visiting the places in person to see where the celebs live rather than sitting at home in their pants on the internet. I bet the celebs love that they will now be meeting more fans who just want to see where they live in person.
Extra points for getting a picture of their house uploaded to your site indexed so that it shows up when people search for "<celeb name> street view".
I THINK they just typoed "jape", as in a prank or joke.
But while I'm posting, I might as well just add that I despise Blair and the scum should be on trial for war trials for the number of British soldiers who are dead because of him. Iraqi civilians too though the US would have gone to war without us.
On fairness grounds I suggest that the UK population massively raises to the occasion and that each and every one of us formally asks google to blur our respective houses, lairs and sheds ! Why should it be only the fat cats and media stars? Discrimination I say !!!!
I had my house blurred some years ago. The StreetView picture was taken just prior to quite a lot of work being done on the house, and it didn't look good at a time I was getting ready to sell it. It isn't restricted to any stratum in society.
(I have just spotted that the copyright date on the StreetView image is now after the work was done, so I suppose I could have the blurring removed if I could be bothered ...)
"Privacy available for everyone, who can afford to pay for it."
Or just about anyone who can be bothered:
http://www.google.com/maps/about/behind-the-scenes/streetview/privacy/
1. Locate the image in Street View.
2. Click "Report a problem" in the bottom-right of the image window.
3. Complete the form and click "Submit".
I realise we're supposed to be anti-Google round here, but it does seem pretty straightforward.
If you really need to see Blair's unblurred blurry terrace (sorry this is London, I mean "mews"*) it's still on Bing maps's street view, so basically all this amounted to is causing a Streissand effect.
* A mews used to be a stable conversion, but in my experience estate agents like to use this term for terrace housing in up and coming areas.
AC wrote :- ""Blair's unblurred blurry terrace (sorry this is London, I mean "mews"*)"
Arnaut the less wrote :- "A mews is where birds of prey were kept.
Blair's terrace is not a mews, nor are mews necessarily where birds of prey were kept. A mews (in London at least) is the back alley behind a terrace of town houses where in the 1700-1800s you would find the sheds, stables, coach-houses, accommodation for lower servants and shit-houses that belonged to the houses, at the end of their back yards (and maybe also kennels and birds-of-prey cages, but unlikely in the middle of London).
If you look at the map/satellite view of Blair's house in Connaught Square you will see in fact that there is an "Archery Close" which was obviously once the mews serving his terrace.
Particularly after WWI, many of these mews buildings were converted to (or replaced by) what politicians would now call "affordable housing". It became fashionable for younger people to live there, and they became "vibrant" places. So from being shit-holes, mews became trendy places to live, so much so, that even new housing in towns often gets called "mews" by the marketing people.
I never gave a thought to where Tony Blair might live, or indeed a second thought to Tony Blair at all
A small search and I found much clearer pictures all over the interwebs. Now I know the address and how many armed police stand outside his door (always a bit of a give away perhaps?)
@You have not yet created a handle - thanks for that link, made me laugh :-)
@Martin-73 -
Is he paying for the danged armed police (I thought carrying an offensive weapon in public was a crime anyway, guess it's one law for us... again)They are Special Branch, the bit of the UK Police Force that guard all of the sitting, and former, Prime Ministers and they naturally have many armed officers. You do realise that it is legal for the police to have armed officers in public?
It's not that difficult to work out, US Presidents also keep their Secret Service detail after leaving office. I believe John Major once commented that it is quite strange that since he started being Prime Minister he has never really been on his own and never will be.
But I think that Blair needs them more than Major, or more than Cameron would ever need.
I do not feel the urge to smash in John Majors face. To be honest if I bumped into him I would probably chat.
Brown would get awkward question "Why did you sell the gold?"
Cameron "Hello Dave, can we have some nuclear power stations please?"
Clegg "Hello Nick, just remember being anti ID cards got you votes."
Milliband "Where's David?"
The photo of my house was taken was before I moved in, can I still blur it? What if the next owner wants it unblurred, can they unblur it?
I'm sharing my house with someone else who doesn't want it blurred, can you make it an on/off animated GIF? Google is missing a massive market here: let people supply their own replacement image for a fee.
Now can they erase his and his wifes faces from the internet as well?
Hmm, no, I think we should keep some of them :)
Interesting that he also has double yellows (no parking) outside his house and on the opposite side of the street. Judging by the marks on the road the parking bays have been removed and replaced by the yellows.
How does one go about that? I would love to stop my neighbours and others from parking outside my house. Can one request this from the council, and does one have to pay them the equivalent in lost parking charges?
Jimmy Page's interesting house in Kensington next to where the late Michael Winner lived (anybody remember the amusing Stella Street show on telly?) is clearly visible at a discrete distance on streetview. However streetview does whizz us past the front now. Lovely house. Maybe when it changes hands we will be able take a closer look again.
Since his own actions are the reason he needs it, he should pay for his own protection. Or the US should. Or the Israelis and the Saudis, since he gets paid for his role as "Middle East Peace Ambassador", and that's another reason he needs it.
If they ever make a television series based on the life of the Blairs, they'll have to call it "Shameless".
This type of secrecy makes me suspect that Mr Blair is hiding WMD's.
I think we should send in a UN team and if Mr Blair fails to comply, get the UN Security Council to vote on action.
Tempting though it is to recommend a tactical strike, I think freezing all assets should be enough to make him squeal....
This should be an on/off switch. Not a partial selection of a persons information.
If you want to be forgotten by google, then that is completely.
Google should scrub all information and indexes it has on that persons name and information until they are deceased, at which time all the indexes can be added back.
So, a google search for that persons name produces 0 results.
Their address, 0 results.
Current news events with involvement of that person 0 results.
Images of that person 0 results.
Images of that persons house, property, family, 0 results.
If you want full disclosure, use a different search engine, or from a different country location without index censorship.
What if you have a common name, like mine? There are over 240 people called "Steven Roper" in Australia alone (I was part of a survey some years back), any and all of whom could come up in a Google search of the name. I was surprised to learn a while ago that there's even a well-known American comic-book character with my name (Intrepid reporter Steve Roper and his sidekick Chief Wahoo) which will quickly dominate any search for it.
Which I'm actually quite glad about, since it makes it very hard for anyone to positively identify any search result with me personally, and gives me a nice level of plausible deniability should anyone decide to go digging up some dirt!
But in regard to this business of de-indexing my name, how would I tell Google which results relate to me, which to the well known doctor in America with my name, and which to the even better-known comic strip character? Do I have to supply every URL that contains the information I want removed? And if so, wouldn't I then be giving Google a list of everything I specifically want to hide?
Seems to me to be better if you just keep your mouth shut and ignore any detrimental references to your name on the internet. It seems better to keep the plausible deniability than to demand some dirt's removal and inextricably link yourself to it in some watchlist somewhere...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
