Can someone please explain to me why the guys at google think this is an acceptable level of imagery to be freely available and easily accessible on the internet?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/13yoh1.jpg)
Yes, that is my parents bedroom.
... Am I over-reacting, or am I justified in WTF-ing at the new level of detail on google maps?
thats terrible.
You are overreacting. Unless your parents are terrorists.
Just trundled around my estate a little bit, and, well, I would imagine net curtain manufacturers are expecting record profits.
I don't take it that way, because nobody is going to use g-maps to spy on me. I just don't make enemies that pathetic.
Since it's a static image and not continual surveillance, I wouldn't worry about it.
Yeah. I'm not so much worried about it, because the image itself is almost entirely harmless. I'm more thinking about the thought process behind it, like, why would google feel the need to put this level of detail on the maps?
Is good for artsy type.
they would probably ask why they should feel restricted to offering a lower quality of image....
If it's visible from public property then it's fair game. Maybe your parents should stop leaving their curtains half open like a bunch of voyeuristic perverts.
Google's lawyer says "Do not expect privacy in this age".
They later withdrew that quote.
But recently in the whole china debacle, they made a new one, I just can't seem to find it right now.
Basically it once more meant that if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear.
fuck them.
Well, I don't expect privacy. I expect my privacy to be infringed upon unless I make sure it isn't. Not expecting privacy without demanding it, is good advice.
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on March 18, 2010, 10:18:40 PM
If it's visible from public property then it's fair game. Maybe your parents should stop leaving their curtains half open like a bunch of voyeuristic perverts.
Google maps gets way more traffic than our street, to be fair. But I see your point.
But not as much as your mom.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 18, 2010, 10:25:34 PM
Google's lawyer says "Do not expect privacy in this age".
They later withdrew that quote.
But recently in the whole china debacle, they made a new one, I just can't seem to find it right now.
Basically it once more meant that if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear.
fuck them.
Seconded.
Next time a certain friend says "i've got nothing to hide" i am giving his passwords to everyone i know.
I'll tell you all one right now.
His router password is password.
I tried to tell him to change it but he didnt care.
So i messed with his settings.
He got angry at me but still hasn't changed it.
Dumbass.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 18, 2010, 11:59:01 PM
But not as much as your mom.
I'm not sure if anyone appreciates the fact "your mother" jokes spans language barriers as much as I do right now.
They're so funny, even a caveman would laugh!
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 19, 2010, 12:39:42 AM
They're so funny, even a caveman would laugh!
FUCK YOU, MY MOM WAS KILLED BY A LAUGHING CAVEMAN!!!
\\
(http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/images/2007/05/15/geico_caveman.jpg)
The way I see it is, if it's visible from a public street it's fair game. The shouldn't be driving on private driveways/roads, but they have just as much right to take pictures as anyone else.
Or should we have stopped George Holliday from publishing the Rodney King video because the police officers didn't consent? (Actually, that's not the best analogy, since Holliday was on private property and the beating was on public property, but it was visible from other public property.)..
Quote from: PeregrineBF on March 19, 2010, 03:15:12 AM
The way I see it is, if it's visible from a public street it's fair game. The shouldn't be driving on private driveways/roads, but they have just as much right to take pictures as anyone else.
superficially it's the same information as anyone could get to, yes.
BUT
it's not.
because putting all that information, aggregated in a huge-ass easily searchable database FUNDAMENTALLY changes the nature of such information.
if I wanted to know the "easiest to rob appartment in neighbourhood X", I could spend half an hour on Streetview instead of having to get up, go to neighbourhood X and be all suspicious-like.
and that is just one of the many many examples.
other thing is, I see somebody I know on streetview. He's smoking a cigarette. What if he gets into a horrible fight with his gf over it because he supposedly quit?
What if it's not a cigarette but his car at the house of someone he's cheating with?
Without streetview he'd just have to worry about people in the immediate vicinity, but now everyone of his friends and partner's friends might stumble upon it months later.
Sure it's not nearly as bad as continuous surveillance, but with the immense amount of pictures stored in that database, there's bound to be snapshots taken at moments that ARE just as bad as continuous surveillance.
Also Streetview pretends to blur out the faces of people. They miss some. And if you know the person whose face is blurred, from context, clothing and blurred facial features you can easily positively identify them anyway. All they have protected against is somebody scraping all those pictures and creating a huge facial recognition database, but then, who'd do that (it's a LOT of effort, more a theoretical danger than a real one).
I can go on.
Thing is, I do like Streetview. It's very useful in all sorts of circumstances just as varied as the creepy privacy invasion circumstances I exampled above.
It's there and it's useful. It's also not going away.
But that doesn't mean it is suddenly okay.
Quote from: BDS on March 18, 2010, 08:40:53 PM
Can someone please explain to me why the guys at google think this is an acceptable level of imagery to be freely available and easily accessible on the internet?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/13yoh1.jpg)
Yes, that is my parents bedroom.
... Am I over-reacting, or am I justified in WTF-ing at the new level of detail on google maps?
That IS horrible. I mean, who the fuck has white curtains? Clearly purple was the color they should have chosen.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 19, 2010, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: BDS on March 18, 2010, 08:40:53 PM
Can someone please explain to me why the guys at google think this is an acceptable level of imagery to be freely available and easily accessible on the internet?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/13yoh1.jpg)
Yes, that is my parents bedroom.
... Am I over-reacting, or am I justified in WTF-ing at the new level of detail on google maps?
That IS horrible. I mean, who the fuck has white curtains? Clearly purple was the color they should have chosen.
Yeah, my bad, heh.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 19, 2010, 09:37:42 AM
Also Streetview pretends to blur out the faces of people. They miss some. And if you know the person whose face is blurred, from context, clothing and blurred facial features you can easily positively identify them anyway. All they have protected against is somebody scraping all those pictures and creating a huge facial recognition database, but then, who'd do that (it's a LOT of effort, more a theoretical danger than a real one).
hey, in your opinion, how likely is it that this will happen in the next 10 years?
because it's the one thing keeping me from making pr0n
There is a way to get around that:
(http://images.halloweencostumes.com/richard-nixon-mask-1.jpg)
And everybody know that Plague is coming
Everybody know that it moving fast
Everybody know that naked man and woman
Are just shining artifact of past
Everybody know scene is dead
But there will be meter on your bed
That disclose
What everybody know...
Leonard "anything for a laugh" Cohen - Everybody Know
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on March 19, 2010, 02:07:11 PM
And everybody know that Plague is coming
Everybody know that it moving fast
Everybody know that naked man and woman
Are just shining artifact of past
Everybody know scene is dead
But there will be meter on your bed
That disclose
What everybody know...
Leonard "anything for a laugh" Cohen - Everybody Know
+1000
And no, I have no illusions of privacy here in Suburbian Hell...and the fact that google maps has had the wrong fucking house for my address for a while leads me to believe they aren't as smartypants as they'd have you think. NOT that I'm going to contact them and tell them, however.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 19, 2010, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 19, 2010, 09:37:42 AM
Also Streetview pretends to blur out the faces of people. They miss some. And if you know the person whose face is blurred, from context, clothing and blurred facial features you can easily positively identify them anyway. All they have protected against is somebody scraping all those pictures and creating a huge facial recognition database, but then, who'd do that (it's a LOT of effort, more a theoretical danger than a real one).
hey, in your opinion, how likely is it that this will happen in the next 10 years?
because it's the one thing keeping me from making pr0n
I agree, pr0n is the other way to get "facial" recognition.
Um anyway I'm not really sure what you're getting at? Part of it is already being done. Dutch ID cards and passports, you're not allowed to smile on them and have to face the camera straight and fit within a certain part of the frame, etc. Part of these requirements only make sense in the context of automated face recognition systems, needing normalized face data. But are not of any value to a human. Also i wouldnt be surprised if the biometric data (eye-nose-mouth distances or whatnot) calculated from these mugshots are stored in the RFID chip in the card.
It really depends, especially if you have a huge database, you're not going to get a very accurate recognition rate. Think of how well a trained team of humans could do it with the streetview pics. If they tried really hard. I think that after about 500 faces or so you will find people that really look alike if the shot is slightly blurry. No computer is going to beat that. Maybe (BIG maybe) in 10 years but not by a very large margin, as the information just isn't there.
Unless the surveillance cameras get a LOT better. But they probably won't because megapixels might get cheaper, but they are useless as quality camera lenses do not get cheaper. If you do have a very sharp high res shot of a face you can get a lot more features (moles, etc) and do pretty unique identification, I think.
I think that if they got the databases in place, you'd be able to say with 95% certainty when two faces are NOT the same. And, given context (like being in the same building within a few minutes), with 80% certainty that they ARE the same. And maybe get a reading of the best match of the faces of the employers of said building or any other limited list. But no way that you're going to positively identify everybody from the huge ass list of passport data.
It all depends on what you want to do. Some things are not very possible.
Also, a big disclaimer, I'm grabbing percentages out of thin air and really making some rough guesstimates.
FYI: Google Maps fuzzes out faces and license plates.
Actually, the street view really helped me when I was looking at apartments. I could get a good view of the surrounding neighborhood and landmarks to find the place.
Quote from: Suu on March 19, 2010, 03:01:17 PM
FYI: Google Maps fuzzes out faces and license plates.
eh yes that's what we were talking about:
QuoteAlso Streetview pretends to blur out the faces of people. They miss some. And if you know the person whose face is blurred, from context, clothing and blurred facial features you can easily positively identify them anyway. All they have protected against is somebody scraping all those pictures and creating a huge facial recognition database, but then, who'd do that (it's a LOT of effort, more a theoretical danger than a real one).
I dunno. I don't let shit like this keep me up at night. If someone really wants to find me, there are alternative ways to do so besides blurry pictures on GoogleMaps.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 19, 2010, 03:03:29 PM
Quote from: Suu on March 19, 2010, 03:01:17 PM
FYI: Google Maps fuzzes out faces and license plates.
eh yes that's what we were talking about:
QuoteAlso Streetview pretends to blur out the faces of people. They miss some. And if you know the person whose face is blurred, from context, clothing and blurred facial features you can easily positively identify them anyway. All they have protected against is somebody scraping all those pictures and creating a huge facial recognition database, but then, who'd do that (it's a LOT of effort, more a theoretical danger than a real one).
But they blur out people's faces.
\\
(http://www.the-frat-pack.com/reviews/images/idiocracy/cabinet.jpg)
Lol, this just got posted on another forum.
http://mashable.com/2007/05/31/top-15-google-street-view-sightings/
Quote from: Suu on March 19, 2010, 03:13:21 PM
Lol, this just got posted on another forum.
http://mashable.com/2007/05/31/top-15-google-street-view-sightings/
Disappointing set.
Bird shit Streetview (http://www.neobusinessconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/business_technology_260.jpg) is better.
Nothing beats the angry Norwegians (http://thecrapbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tumblr_kxlk0t73k71qzpwi0o1_500.jpg)
Quote from: Risus on March 19, 2010, 03:08:40 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 19, 2010, 03:03:29 PM
Quote from: Suu on March 19, 2010, 03:01:17 PM
FYI: Google Maps fuzzes out faces and license plates.
eh yes that's what we were talking about:
QuoteAlso Streetview pretends to blur out the faces of people. They miss some. And if you know the person whose face is blurred, from context, clothing and blurred facial features you can easily positively identify them anyway. All they have protected against is somebody scraping all those pictures and creating a huge facial recognition database, but then, who'd do that (it's a LOT of effort, more a theoretical danger than a real one).
But they blur out people's faces.
\\
(http://www.the-frat-pack.com/reviews/images/idiocracy/cabinet.jpg)
Right. My mistake.
Quote from: Risus on March 19, 2010, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: Suu on March 19, 2010, 03:13:21 PM
Lol, this just got posted on another forum.
http://mashable.com/2007/05/31/top-15-google-street-view-sightings/
Disappointing set.
Bird shit Streetview (http://www.neobusinessconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/business_technology_260.jpg) is better.
Nothing beats the angry Norwegians (http://thecrapbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tumblr_kxlk0t73k71qzpwi0o1_500.jpg)
The Norwegians just made my life 112% better.
Quote from: Rumckle on March 19, 2010, 01:16:49 PM
There is a way to get around that:
(http://images.halloweencostumes.com/richard-nixon-mask-1.jpg)
:fap:
Keeping in mind that google maps pictures can be several years old. There's one shot of the house I lived in that's three years old. This just isn't something I can bring myself to be paranoid about, when there are so many other things I could be worrying about.