google streetview uk is live!

[gumboot]

Not everyone is keen on streetview!

So they've blurred faces and plates, but not fingers. How about arses, then?

Although they have done something. What happened to the guy's arm?

[piku]

So they've blurred faces and plates, but not fingers. How about arses, then?

Arses are blurred, look

bottom!

There's a bloke walking past my house and the Google Spyvan has blurred his right hand and his dog, but you can easily see his face. I think hats confuse it, it must look for large round white areas or something.

[Alarm]

Not everyone is keen on streetview!

Google [bots] probably think that he is doing the victory sign because he knew he was going to be immortalised on Streetview.

[mr_chuffy]

Streetview helps make the world a better place.

Unless you work for the Daily Mail, then it's just a cause for OUTRAGE.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tview.html

[Orava]

Streetview helps make the world a better place.

Unless you work for the Daily Mail, then it's just a cause for OUTRAGE.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tview.html

Peadogeddon!

[piku]

Some of my students today managed to find themselves on our bit of streetview, which was kind of funny.

[Dungeon-Dave]

Anyone noticed 3D streetview?

Try this one

The blokey to the left has red/green glasses. Those with tinted specs can click to get the colour depth effect.

[PFVA]

The government has forbidden the Google Street View Car from going around taking the pictures. On the root of it is the issue brought out by the Germans earlier about some private information and possible industrial spying. There is also the claim that even if Google is no longer getting that data that it is an invasion of privacy taking pictures of houses and buildings.

They had done it once before in some areas and they were going to do an update round.

[Darkflame]

Utter idiocy. Denighing any individual or company the right to take photos in public places is a very bad precedent.

Anyone noticed 3D streetview?

Try this one

The blokey to the left has red/green glasses. Those with tinted specs can click to get the colour depth effect.

Yes, its good too!
It has a crude idea of the "shape" of the scene too, its not just a fixed 3d layer.
They have some some clever stuff to work that out.

[pogo]

Street view's live in Brazil and rather than mooning fucktards first order of business is remove dead bodies from the images:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/g ... rvice.html

Somehow think this won't do Rio's tourism industry any good.

[bumblebee]

There is also the claim that even if Google is no longer getting that data that it is an invasion of privacy taking pictures of houses and buildings..

Yeah, because our privacy is otherwise totally respected. Those with the big notions of privacy are running out of subjects to occupy the populace with while they f.. us over. And the populace is sucked into it like they are into the buying junk you don't need circle. Hypocrisy and lies.

[IronGiant]

Utter idiocy. Denighing any individual or company the right to take photos in public places is a very bad precedent.

The problem that many people have with Streetview is the organised and centralised nature of it - the pictures go into a central database that is accessible to everyone, on an internet site that pretty much everyone has heard about.

You can't even begin to equate that to the average person taking a handful of artistic photos or holiday snaps and perhaps putting them up on a website that relatively few people will have even heard about.

[Darkflame]

Yes I can.
If your in public, your IN PUBLIC. Its quite a simple division, once you step out onto a public street I don't see why you have any rights to "pretend your not there". If you think not having Google take your photo of your house gives you security though obscurity, fair enough, but your just kidding yourself if you think it makes a difference.

The fact is, Google just gives us a public, centralized database that levels the playing field.
Take that away and anyone else (ie, governments or even just technical groups) could easily have their own private database's. You could probably accumulate a fair bit with just algorithms scanning over FlickR photos.
(I fact, theres been some impressive 3d reconstructions made from public Flickr photos, you'd be surprised at the density you can get in typical city's).

So if photos are online, they are already, effectively "in a database", it just means only those with more technical skills, and possibly funding will be able to search them.....I don't see that as better in the slightest.

===
Finally, I'd like to point out you made a very simple example, dodging a lot of issues;

What if that individual photographers website became famous? What if it started getting the same number of views any typical street would get in Google maps? Would people in the photos then have the right to demand it goes offline under your logic? What if the photographer labeled the photos by street?

Theres a thousand points in-between "google maps" and "individual obscure website", not one hard line. The difference really isn't as clear cut when you stop to think of them.

[KlaxonCow]

Peadogeddon!

Why can no-one spell "paedophile" correctly anymore?

Well, at least you didn't spell it "pedophile", as the Americans do, which actually refers to someone with a love for feet, not children.

A pedometer measures how many footsteps you've taken, not how many children you've abused.

At this rate of decline of the English language, we'll soon see an angry mob of Daily Mail readers spray-painting accusations of foot love on the doors of child doctors.

I do like peas, though. An excellent source of zinc, apparently.

[disciple]

Peadogeddon!

Why can no-one spell "paedophile" correctly anymore?[/q[]

Well, at least you didn't spell it "pedophile", as the Americans do, which actually refers to someone with a love for feet, not children.

A pedometer measures how many footsteps you've taken, not how many children you've abused.

It's Pedant-geddon!!

ped·ant
–noun
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
4. Obsolete . a schoolmaster.