can Google legally operate surveillance vans?

[Misternatural 0]

The Google street view feature is the result of using vans equipped with cameras which roam the streets of populated areas taking detailed video still footage, though it has many interesting uses-What do you think about this activity, should it be allowed? does it infringe on any constitutional rights?

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Gawain 0]

Quote

does it infringe on any constitutional rights?

IMO: No.

Tourists are taking pictures all over the place, pictures get posted on the internet, etc. Google at least has the consideration to blur faces if they get caught on their pics (also a commercial distribution intent thing too).

There are cameras everywhere...personally, Google's are the least of any worries.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nanook 1]

This is not surveillance. Any person can take photos generally anywhere anytime. Look at the paparazzi. I don't think any rights are being infringed here.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[ryoder 1,590]

You call this a "van?"???

http://googlified.com/files/immersive-car.jpg

They drive down the road taking a series of still photos.
Show me the law that says you can't take photos in public.
If there was such a law, every news organization, and most citizens, would be guilty of criminal activity.

BTW "surveillance" generally means to monitor a specific person. I don't' see how that can be applied to driving down a road once per year taking snapshots..

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

Quote

The Google street view feature is the result of using vans equipped with cameras which roam the streets of populated areas taking detailed video still footage, though it has many interesting uses-What do you think about this activity, should it be allowed? does it infringe on any constitutional rights?

Depends on the country we're talking about.

In the US, it's perfectly legal to shoot photographs of anything you can see from public places.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BIGUN 1,488]

It is legal.
They're not doing anything that a regular person could observe by walking down the street.
Google has a URL removal tool.
Don't want your house on their Google view,
Copy paste the url of your house and submit it for removal and they'll remove it.

Boy, they did get smacked when they posted complete pictures of military bases - I gotta admit that was a bit of a bonehead idea.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

The Google street view feature is the result of using vans equipped with cameras which roam the streets of populated areas taking detailed video still footage, though it has many interesting uses-What do you think about this activity, should it be allowed? does it infringe on any constitutional rights?

Which article or amendment of the constitution would it be infringing in the USA?

If you refer to other nations, which parts of their constitutions would be infirnged?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

A discussion of privacy issues of StreetView:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View#Privacy_issues

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

It's not the government taking these pictures, so the federal Constitution isn't implicated with it.

SO you've got to look to the question of privacy. The threshhold question is always whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Answer? I wouldn't think that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for anything plainly visible on a public road.

For an interesting primer on the subject, look here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/babshouse1.html

It's a portion of the court's opinion relating to Barbra Streisand's Invasion of Privacy claim that the court dismissed. (Remember when she sued the environmental organization for photographing the coast of California and she sued because her house was included in the photos?)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Privacy advocates have objected to this Google feature, pointing to views found to show men leaving strip clubs, protesters at an abortion clinic, sunbathers in bikinis, cottagers at public parks, parents hitting their children, males picking up prostitutes and other activities, as well as people engaging in activities visible from public property in which they do not wish to be seen publicly.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Misternatural 0]

the logo says Immersive media...is this a subsidiary of Google?

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[labrys 0]

Don't think so:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4232286.html

Owned by Remi #?

[Misternatural 0]

>>Google has a URL removal tool.
Don't want your house on their Google view,
Copy paste the url of your house and submit it for removal and they'll remove it.

Thats helpful and a wise feature, as i could see criminals taking the time to slowly case out a prospective home from the comfort of their own desk- checking out the exits, blind spots, view from neighboring houses, lighting etc.. they can even map out a GPS escape route. See this is why I think this activity warrants a debate.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Misternatural 0]

Thank you,
So from my understanding of the laws pertaining to this issue in the case that was cited, the recording of visual information of private property from a public locale without consent of the owner is legal in the U.S.

Also If the U.S. federal government uses this information for any purpose only then does it become a constitutionality issue.

So now we are left with an interpretation of how this information may be used.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[BillyVance 35]

Quote

It's not the government taking these pictures, so the federal Constitution isn't implicated with it.

SO you've got to look to the question of privacy. The threshhold question is always whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Answer? I wouldn't think that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for anything plainly visible on a public road.

For an interesting primer on the subject, look here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/babshouse1.html

It's a portion of the court's opinion relating to Barbra Streisand's Invasion of Privacy claim that the court dismissed. (Remember when she sued the environmental organization for photographing the coast of California and she sued because her house was included in the photos?)

The guy who took those photographs is my brother's best friend. He took me for a joy ride in his Extra 300 L acrobatic plane, and has a nice helicopter as well. When the news broke on that, we all thought it was hysterical.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[DARK 0]

the same way they can use an ordinance survey map to do plan their diabolical deeds should we burn all maps too?

criminals will be criminals its akin to blaming guns for crime which ii was only jsut talking about with a few friends of mine it makes no sense

im sure there are plenty of peole who have numerous law abiding uses of this service you dont punish them because some people might use it to break the law just like you dont shut down the internet because some people use it to distribute child porn.....you punish the people who use it that way

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The Google street view feature is the result of using vans equipped with cameras which roam the streets of populated areas taking detailed video still footage, though it has many interesting uses-What do you think about this activity, should it be allowed? does it infringe on any constitutional rights?

Its still not as interesting as the Google Bedroom feature...
The camera is installed right up there... in the NW corner of your bedroom... just do a search on Google pay per view

[Misternatural 0]

Obviously I am a privacy advocate, as such I feel compelled to question any possible infringements thereof. In My mind any RECORDING of personal information, genetic material,photo imagery of me or my property,personal data, or audio of me-without my knowing or consent, is a form of surveillance.

That being said I enjoy using the google maps, as they are a very useful tool for a great number of applications.and I read their terms of use so I know what is allowed and what is not by using the data
and it clearly says "not to be used for any illegal purpose"-so that should take care of that

But from my understanding of the law which I admit is limited- once precedent is set like driving around taking volumes of pictures of private property- what's to stop companies from actually operating full on surveillance vans with live video and audio feeds to the internet of private citizens minding their own business on their private property.

So that's why it should at least be questioned.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Misternatural 0]

you are a naughty,naughty lady....and I like it.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[shropshire 0]

So, are you for or against security cameras in public streets; recording private people going about their private business?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Misternatural 0]

Good question, Well I think the distinction is whether or not people are being filmed while on their own private property.

On public or commercial property, though I may not like being filmed personally, it's an established practice over a reasonably long enough period of time,without contest- that it has become widely accepted and perfectly legal to do so.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[shropshire 0]

Good answer.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

1. Google != Fed.gov, so no infringement.

2. Federal courts have ruled that you have NO expectation of privacy when you are out and about in public.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Boy, they did get smacked when they posted complete pictures of military bases - I gotta admit that was a bit of a bonehead idea.

Why, are they not on local maps and street directories?
Google maps is nothing more than elaborate road map.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[BIGUN 1,488]

.

Quote

...the Pentagon doesn’t mind that the whole place is clearly shown in the satellite photos that are a few clicks away on Google Maps and elsewhere. Still, you can learn a lot about a building from panoramic street-level images that just doesn’t show in satellite photos, so it’s not too hard to understand the sensitivity in the Pentagon.


Source: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/google-street-view-on-army-bases-better-not/

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.