Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   If I were a Google exec, I would...

   

   Ajax 4Hire, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 6:33am

   
   

   use the sword of reciprocity.
   I'll give up the private information ONLY if you print YOUR information beside it.
   
   Of course then I would make up a set of private data for public use, sort of like my name Ajax 4Hire.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   The borings

   

   Evil Mike, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 7:14am

   
   

   really did sue Google over the street view stuff? Wasn't that an April Fool's gag??

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Speaking of hipocrites...

   

   Tick-Tock, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 7:17am

   
   

   http://valleywag.com/365008/marissa-mayer-gets-a-stoplight-and-a-room-without-street-view
   
   http:// valleywag.com/373375/google-updates-street-view-in-san-francisco-leaves-marissa-mayers-pad-off-the-g rid

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: The borings

   

   Alimas, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 7:56am

   
   

   No, that was legitimate.
   Exercising their right to be moronic.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   So long as...

   

   Le Blue Dude, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 8:02am

   
   

   So long as the google execs' street visible houses are on there, I don't care what addresses they have. I don't feel any need to verify.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Reason

   

   LBD, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 8:02am

   
   

   Reason I don't feel any need to verify is that if they took said houses out, there would be suspicious gaps

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Speaking of hipocrites...

   

   Alimas, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 8:05am

   
   

   Uhm...
   
   As one commenter and the article say, (and a little street view trip around the specified area shows,) it is a very high traffic area and the light was financed by the people living in the hotel (including Marissa) to improve the safety of them trying to get out of that side street.
   
   It had nothing to do with Google, despite what that article author has apparently pulled out of his ass.
   In the street view one can clearly see down the side street, perceive and dead end and garner that it wasn't necessary to drive down it for the Google maps.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Moronic?

   

   PRMan, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 8:13am

   
   

   I don't think the people suing Google are too moronic. The Google van took pictures of their backyard from the middle of their driveway. That's not a public street or view and they have every right to be upset that Google invaded their privacy.
   
   Still, Google took it down with a simple request, so short of a class action, I'm not sure what the point of the lawsuit is.
   
   Now if Google was refusing to take it down, that would be different, but it looks like it was an honest mistake of taking pictures while the van driver was trying to turn around on a narrow road that becomes a driveway.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Moronic?

   

   Alimas, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 8:23am

   
   

   Yeah, asking for the pictures to be removed (as they were an obvious mistake) wouldn't been reasonable and Google did do so.
   
   But the lawsuit? Thats moronic. Their reasoning for it is horrible too.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:05am

    
    

    isn't the American dream is any1 get get rich quick?
    
    when those ppl saw a multi billion dollar company they figured they would try there luck.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    mdmadph (profile), Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:17am

    
    

    "Is It That Difficult To Understand The Difference Between Public Data And Private Data?"
    
    Yes. Yes it is.
    
    Look no further than people getting upset at having their raunchy pasts (that they freely uploaded to Facebook) discovered when they apply for a new job.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: Re: Speaking of hipocrites...

    

    Boost, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:25am

    
    

    Meh, maybe if the kept some of their money and just rode bicycles to work (lord knows you can do it nearly all year in the Bay area) they woudln't need a damned stoplight. But, hey, they did pay the city for it so who cares? Well, they should have to pay all the people that the stoplight inconveniences. Those people now have to pay more money in gasoline because of it.
    
    I really don't care...one more stop light in a congested city. If those people were smart, they'd leave the city.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Not necessarily true

    

    JohnMc, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:28am

    
    

    Though the delineation between public and private can be pretty clear, it appears that even Google can't tell the difference. There are instances listed in the blog '
    smoking gun' that show clearly that in order to get the photographs of somebody's garage they had to have infringed on a private drive OFF of a public street.
    
    
    link

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    Re: Not necessarily true

    

    Alimas, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:45am

    
    

    C'mon, are you kidding?
    Thats the same driving error as the other claim.
    The road (excuse me, driveway) appears just like any other road - even bearing a name apparently - "Goldenbrook Ln.".
    
    This sort of thing is going to happen on occasion just cause we often build our roadways in confusing manners.
    
    Perhaps the driver assumed the folks taking in the data he gathered would realize his mistake? Perhaps he should have said something himself. Obviously more effort needs to be put into making sure the mapping is done accurately and respectfully.
    
    But to imply this was deliberate trespassing seems to be taking some liberties with the photos on the page.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 1:36pm

    
    

    The only worry that I have is that my permission would not be given when the picture is taken. Even if you are outside in full view, it should not give anyone the right to allow people to view you there for perpetuity.
    
    Of course this will all go away as soon as some killer uses this project as a tool to commit homicide.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    @#15

    

    Jeremy, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 5:06pm

    
    

    Are you kidding me? "Of course this will all go away as soon as some killer uses this project as a tool to commit homicide." How is using the street view any different from driving/walking by the house and taking pictures? Oh, wait, its not. If someone is lazy enough to use this to see pictures of a house instead of actually going to the house, then they are probably lazy enough to not even attempt the homicide in the first place.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    Is it private if it's on Google?

    

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 7:39pm

    
    

    Anyone else remember the CNET story uncovering personal information about Google's own CEO using Google itself? The one that resulted in a ban by Google on talking to CNET reporters?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Retarded Aussie rag

    

    Daz, Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:21pm

    
    

    Thats just trying to beat up a story out of nothing. The Australian is a pretty shit paper, though (probably still want the White Australia Policy brought back). I believe legally Google wouldn't even have to remove license plate numbers and the like as they have promised to do, because if you can photograph it from a public place its legal (except in a few circumstances).

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    Google's abysmal record on privacy

    

    Scott Cleland, Apr 16th, 2008 @ 11:36am

    
    

    This is Scott Cleland, President of Precursor LLC and Chairman of Netcompetition.org putting my "two cents" again on one of Mr. Masnick's blogs strongly defending Google when Google may not be fully worthy of such a vigorous defense.
    Google has serious privacy "issues" which I highlighted and documented with many links to mainstream sources -- in this Precursorblog post on Google and privacy -- http://www.precursorblog.com/node/665

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    Re: Google's abysmal record on privacy

    

    Mike (profile), Apr 16th, 2008 @ 11:43am

    
    

    Um. Scott. I was not defending Google on all privacy issues. Just the one discussed in this post.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment