Melbourne Beats

a1studmuffin wrote: but how is it different to me walking around the streets and taking photos looking into people's windows?

scale!

the point isn't really that it allows people to walk down a single street and look in someones windows. Like you say we can already do that.

the difference is it allows a person to walk down several streets in seven very different locations in the space of about 5 minutes. Thats something one person could not possibly achieve without the aid of a teleport or a tardis.

and if you started taking photos looking into peoples windows I'm pretty sure that people would take exception to it in much the same way that people are taking exception to Street View. I'd say that if a person asked you to stop you would be required to do so and if you didn't then theyd be in within their rights to seek some sort of legal intervetion.

or not within their rights to kick the shit out of you.... perhaps

mrj wrote:

a1studmuffin wrote: but how is it different to me walking around the streets and taking photos looking into people's windows?

scale!

the point isn't really that it allows people to walk down a single street and look in someones windows. Like you say we can already do that.

the difference is it allows a person to walk down several streets in seven very different locations in the space of about 5 minutes. Thats something one person could not possibly achieve without the aid of a teleport or a tardis.

and if you started taking photos looking into peoples windows I'm pretty sure that people would take exception to it in much the same way that people are taking exception to Street View. I'd say that if a person asked you to stop you would be required to do so and if you didn't then theyd be in within their rights to seek some sort of legal intervetion.

But I can do that on Flickr (or any other photo publishing website) anyway....?

At what point should the line be drawn between publishing a photo on the internet and invading privacy, when, publishing photos online has been common practice since the internet's very existence.

The only difference is the application and how the photos are presented, and I'd say Flickr invades way more privacy than Google Street View ever will if we're talking people and landmarks in images.

deviant wrote:I agree A1, heaps of peeps on this board have posted pics of people in the street without their knowledge or consent.

I guess it's the shear scope of this that freaks people out.

The aim of people posting random pics on this forum was not to make a worldwide database of every street, residence, vehicle, school, industry etc etc open and readily accessible to the public.

And, just cause peeps have done something on MB.com, doesn't make it right

lynt wrote:

mrj wrote:

a1studmuffin wrote: but how is it different to me walking around the streets and taking photos looking into people's windows?

scale!

the point isn't really that it allows people to walk down a single street and look in someones windows. Like you say we can already do that.

the difference is it allows a person to walk down several streets in seven very different locations in the space of about 5 minutes. Thats something one person could not possibly achieve without the aid of a teleport or a tardis.

and if you started taking photos looking into peoples windows I'm pretty sure that people would take exception to it in much the same way that people are taking exception to Street View. I'd say that if a person asked you to stop you would be required to do so and if you didn't then theyd be in within their rights to seek some sort of legal intervetion.

But I can do that on Flickr (or any other photo publishing website) anyway....?

At what point should the line be drawn between publishing a photo on the internet and invading privacy, when, publishing photos online has been common practice since the internet's very existence.

The only difference is the application and how the photos are presented, and I'd say Flickr invades way more privacy than Google Street View ever will if we're talking people and landmarks in images.

Its interesting that you should use Flickr as the example

Last year (or maybe it was this year) Vodafone was sued by a girl in America for using a photo of her that was on Flickr for one of their advertising campaigns without her consent.

The advertisement featured a photo of the girl with the catchphrase "40 c txt virgin to virgin" or something like that. Understandably the chick was pretty upset and she took em to court.

I can't remember the outcome, I think I remember something about her winning but don't quote me on that.

furthermore the content on Flickr is not all inclusive and not easily searched. You can't type Dr John Smith into Flickr and be assured or getting a search return, or getting the Dr John Smith you were after. Its up to the users to tag and collate the information and therefore its a bit random. One of Google Street Views key capacities is ease and readiness of search and completeness of information - it differs from Flickr greatly in this respect imo. The information in Street View was collected and catologued in a very thorough and methodical fashion, and this has a clear effect on how it can and will be used.

I understand your point, and I agree that their are underlying common principles that apply to both - but I think the way that they have been applied leaves big differences

thats Rad
but makes me home sick

Agreed mrj, for example while i am talking to a client on the phone, i can look up there address and make assumption on who they are based upon what their house looks like, if they have 3 mercedes parked out the front that may lead me to think they have lots of money etc.
Im sure that there is something that this could be used for which would breach privacy, it is perhaps just not immediately apparent. Dont get me wrong, i love it, but i can see that its possible that it could be used for evil as well as good.

The Vodaphone x American girl story was a copyright issue.

I agree that it's easy to use Google's services for evil, just look at Google Maps now!

The act of uploading photos of the public to the internet for use in an application isn't illegal, the question is morality, and the question I put from the street photography point of view (which is argued to death all over the internet) was that are those who don't approve of the photographer (Google's) morality, moral enough not to use (view) it?

I think it is fucking mad!

Nice x Google. Set in stone for life!

almax wrote:Dont get me wrong, i love it, but i can see that its possible that it could be used for evil as well as good.

Absolutely. But in your example, if someone decides to park their 3 mercs on the street out the front of their house, that's their decision. Whether it's searchable online or not is irrelevant IMO - I could just drive around a rich neighbourhood if I wanted to find a place to rob.

It's simply the same fear of new technology that prompted people to get all up in arms about finding bomb recipes online. "Think of the children!!!" they screamed, forgetting that public libraries had this information readily available for decades beforehand anyway.

Pretty much all technology can be used for evil - does that mean it shouldn't be available to everyone? I think the only situation I'd say "yes" to this is when the technology can easily be used to physically hurt/kill people, such as guns. In the case of bomb recipes, I don't think this is as bad, since if you wanted to make a bomb you'd still have to go to the effort of finding the ingredidents + taking the risk of actually making it. On the other hand, being able to buy a gun + ammo from Walmart (despite there being no real need for a gun in urban communities) is a bit wacky.

Also, I have decided to agree with mrj because he mentioned a tardis in his argument.

Searched my work, and found workmates smoking durries out the front... gold

I reckon some of the photos in teh MB.C photo thread (and yes, flickr also) are a bigger invasion of privacy than Google street view

i.e, if someone is sitting on a train (just as an example) minding their own business and you decide they're photogenic then you should ask if you can take their photo imo

breaksRbest wrote:I reckon some of the photos in teh MB.C photo thread (and yes, flickr also) are a bigger invasion of privacy than Google street view

i.e, if someone is sitting on a train (just as an example) minding their own business and you decide they're photogenic then you should ask if you can take their photo imo

i've thought that a bit recently. i'd be well pissed if someone snapped me looking out the window then posted it online tbh.

fuck yeah my car is looking dope

I can see my house from here!

a1studmuffin wrote:

almax wrote:Dont get me wrong, i love it, but i can see that its possible that it could be used for evil as well as good.

Absolutely. But in your example, if someone decides to park their 3 mercs on the street out the front of their house, that's their decision. Whether it's searchable online or not is irrelevant IMO - I could just drive around a rich neighbourhood if I wanted to find a place to rob.

you have missed the point of my example, i meant that while i am here in Vic i can look up a clients house in queensland for example and make assumptions about them based upon their house. This was not realistically possible previously.
Sure my example is not really a big issue but i can see there is scope for bigger issues arising. Some have come to light in the papers today, a dude was caught sleeping in his work truck, another blokes car was photographed outside his mistress' house, pretty much confirming to his girlfriend he was cheating on him, another person discovered that a garage door was infact damaged by his neighbour even though his neighbour flatly denied ever parking in front of the garage door. So is this an invasion of privacy? from a legal point of view i would tend to think so.
I hope it stays though, i love it

Well put Almax.

lol i do admit thats pretty funny

almax wrote:

a1studmuffin wrote:

almax wrote:Dont get me wrong, i love it, but i can see that its possible that it could be used for evil as well as good.

Absolutely. But in your example, if someone decides to park their 3 mercs on the street out the front of their house, that's their decision. Whether it's searchable online or not is irrelevant IMO - I could just drive around a rich neighbourhood if I wanted to find a place to rob.

you have missed the point of my example, i meant that while i am here in Vic i can look up a clients house in queensland for example and make assumptions about them based upon their house. This was not realistically possible previously.
Sure my example is not really a big issue but i can see there is scope for bigger issues arising. Some have come to light in the papers today, a dude was caught sleeping in his work truck, another blokes car was photographed outside his mistress' house, pretty much confirming to his girlfriend he was cheating on him, another person discovered that a garage door was infact damaged by his neighbour even though his neighbour flatly denied ever parking in front of the garage door. So is this an invasion of privacy? from a legal point of view i would tend to think so.
I hope it stays though, i love it

Surely if its a public space, then you should have not expectation of privacy?

Interesting point.

apophenian wrote: Surely if its a public space, then you should have not expectation of privacy?

I'm not so sure about that.

Also, bear in mind that many/most of these photos are of private residences, not public space.

They're all taken from public property though.

I'm reminded of that guy in the US who set up a webcam in his apartment window pointing straight across to his neighbour's apartment window. Legally he was doing nothing wrong.

I can't comment on the legality of it, I'm no lawyer - but our constitution and laws can be different to the USA.

But - I would expect privacy within a private property, regardless of laws. Just moral decency really.

close your curtains

So we all have to close our curtains during the daytime?

yeah all good points really, its more than likely legal, similar to private investigators work i guess, they can sit in a car outside a house and take photos to their hearts content, shit they can even follow someone into a bar or public venue etc so really it has to be legal.

Off the beaten track, I know, but don't PI's need a license?

Direktor wrote:So we all have to close our curtains during the daytime?

Nah, just when you see the Google Camera Car coming


I don't see any problem with Street View at all. Just gives the whingers another thing to whinge about

google have agreed to (and implemented) a system of blurring faces and number plates, although they are probably under no legal obligation to.

Direktor wrote:So we all have to close our curtains during the daytime?

If you want privacy, absolutely. I don't know about you, but I close the blinds every time I get changed or come out from a shower. And I usually don't leave valuables in plain view if they're near a window visible from the street.

Nah I put a spotlight on myself and valuables.

Direktor wrote:Nah I put a spotlight on myself

typical MC

I thought you said you where using a pin spot Spiesy?

interesting.....

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story ... 08,00.html

Al - when are you getting in touch with Google to have your house removed?

Heh, but I don't have a problem with Google Street View at all! My house is visible, but you can't see anything interesting through the windows so I'm not bothered. Also, my car is a completely run of the mill Mitsubishi so I'm not worried about anyone seeing that and thinking "PHWOAR, let's STEAL IT!"

LOL @ Al and Feigan.

a1: wasn't thinking about myself. Was thinking of the examples offered by Al.

Wow, I'm confused now - I thought people misread my name and were talking to me when they said "al", LOL

lol, i saw that and i assumed that your name must have been Al too so was waiting for Feigs clarify who the question was for, which by the way, my answer would be no too, i like the technology, my house is on there and im fine with it, my arguments we purely as a devils advocate type role.

Indeed.

twas directed @ Alistair.

I mean c'mon, he is like the biggest thing since Aubergine.

what happens if you get scared half to death twice?

? would you be scarred for life (sic)

Feigan wrote:what happens if you get scared half to death twice?

You would be quarter of your original aliveness.

good ones - I don't know what would happen.

I read it on a beer bottle lid last night.

@ 'aliveness'

Its a medical term.

Wow!

Google will delete your house from 'street view' if you request it.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html