What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
118 Comments
- gharding, on 10/11/2007, -11/+160@SPECOPS:
I'm not sure if you know this, but instead of typing QUOTE and /QUOTE, you can signify a quote simply by using these fun little characters: ". Just put one at each end of the quote! - imjustabill, on 10/11/2007, -9/+141How is being able to read a license plate number an invasion of privacy?? They're right on the front of your car for the whole world to see, It's not like someone can't just write them down or memorize them.
- drcreek, on 10/11/2007, -5/+106THEY REMOVED HER UNDERWEAR???? AWESOME!
Now we can see everything!! woo! - mookiemookie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+83Since when did anyone have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a *public street*? People need to take their damn tinfoil helmets off.
- brianbb98, on 10/11/2007, -7/+75Whats the big deal about someones license plate showing up online? I can go outside and see hundreds of them. Hell, I can look out my window and see them all over the place. My plate number is EYJ-568... umm... so?
- Caydel, on 10/11/2007, -7/+70That's great that you can report inappropriate images or privacy violations; however, I think this feature might be abused. To a certain extent, what is visible from the street can be considered 'in public', and if that happens to end up on a photo on the internet, that's not a privacy invasion. A bit unwanted, and possibly rude, but not a privacy violation.
At any rate, this teaches you to shut your curtains. - Erroneus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+62*****, no where to find women in thongs on the net now!
- Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+58That's not a woman in her underwear. That's a woman with her pants falling down. Big difference.
- eezzzz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+58What's wrong with skinning cats in the back of a pickup truck..? Everyone has to eat...
- slapded, on 10/11/2007, -3/+43true. taking something off the net is like trying to take piss out of a pool
- Funman1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31Here is crime in progress.
http://www.google.com/maps?q=San%20Francisco,%20CA,%20USA&ie=UTF8&ll=37.770274,-122.419195&spn=0.019981,0.048194&z=15&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.762228,-122.417224&cbp=1,231.152235392829,0.592595123594951,2 - JaWright, on 10/11/2007, -5/+35@brianbb98
I just stole your identity. Please disregard the blow up doll on your next credit card statement. Thanks - KnightMareInc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+34cant expect privacy in public.
- pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -8/+34THE PICTURES ARE TAKEN IN PUBLIC SPACE. Quit bitching.
- maximusGeek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26Problem is once its on the web, it cant be taken back. It was removed before I heard about it but now I have seen it.
- shawnz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26has anybody noticed that a guy goes into her car if you look from a ways north?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=588+44th+Ave,+San+Francisco,+San+Francisco,+California+94121,+United+States&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.008397,72.685547&ie=UTF8&cd=2&ll=37.782909,-122.503181&spn=0.009276,0.017745&z=16&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.778502,-122.505003&cbp=1,180,0.583966850019365,3
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=588+44th+Ave,+San+Francisco,+San+Francisco,+California+94121,+United+States&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.008397,72.685547&ie=UTF8&cd=2&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.778627,-122.505012&cbp=1,180,0.580976451056929,3&ll=37.783045,-122.503181&spn=0.009276,0.017745&z=16 - StarManta, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27You can't take a picture of a house with an open window, then?
If you don't want to be seen, close your curtains. It's not that hard. - kcpwnsgman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26sweet, we could solve crimes this way, just think if this google van was driving down the street at the time a murder was taken place, we could see the events unfolding into the original confrontation, then the initial stabbing, then the 12 stabs after, imagine the possibilities!
- asskicker32, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25wow. She lives about a half a block from me. Ill have to swing by and see if she is available...
- jhnewt, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27@ Specops
Ooh, ooh! I know who's liable. The guy that ***** murdered you. - th3heretic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Or it could be her boyfriend, father, brother
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20@skubiszm
Later someone killed the joke showing us the shot from a different angle. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Did you read the post?! The screenshot of the original is clearly there. It's the first image in case you didn't notice.
- SPECOPS, on 10/11/2007, -27/+41The concern isn't 100% privacy. Its what you were doing, or who you are, at the time the pic was taken, along with a way to further ID you.
Here is an example. Let's say you were skinning some cats in the bed of your pickup truck, and a pic was taken of a weird cloud formation behind you, but you were accidentally in the shot. The pic made it to a major magazine, let's use TIME, showing the great cloud formation, and it wasn't cropped, so there you are in the same pic, skinning cats, in the back of your pickup truck, and license plate showing. A cat lover may look up your plate, find your address, and come skin you alive, murdering you. Who would be liable? Would the magazine company? The answer won't be known until someone sues, and goes to court, and a verdict is given - this is RISK.
So what would any great magazine publication do (TIME for our example here) to mitigate or minimize this risk? They will rop you out completely, or mask your face/license plate, mitigating or minimizing their risk. Hopefully this will help you understand. - zlintux, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18People really need to get over the licence plate issue. Seriously, it's not just publicly viewable on all cars (by law), it's public property and record. Yes, you don't own that plate -- your state does.
Furthermore, that plate number won't give you the address or phone number to whom it is registered.
Besides, previous court rulings have upheld that any picture you can take from public property -- even if it depicts private property, is legal. Look at the paparazzi. If celebrities with expensive lawyers couldn't stop them, then no one can. Google even won the cases with their satellite maps depicting private property.
The *only* thing anyone can argue about either their street view or satellite services would be security.
With such concerns, certain things are blocked out on their satellite maps (eg, VP's house). However, since these aren't exactly blueprints, and anyone can see what it depicts with their own eyes, I doubt anyone could get things taken down for security (afterall, with the satellite maps, you couldn't normally get aerial views of the VP's house).
So, if you've got a problem with it, tough. There's no legal basis that could make Google take down pictures of you walking/driving down the street, looking out the window of your house, or pissing on the sidewalk... - ahawks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14@raid517:
It's not an issue for you to read the comments and not the article.
It's an issue when you comment about the article, without even clicking it. Whether you're asking about it, counter-arguing it, providing more info about it, you should always know what the actual article presents before you open your mouth on the subject. - SPECOPS, on 10/11/2007, -15/+28QUOTE
I don't see any issue of why the picture was removed. You can't see the persons face, any identifying marks or a license plate of the truck. Is there only one person that wears a black thong under a pair of jeans
/QUOTE
Actually, you can see the person's face, in subsequent views, looking back at the truck (e.g. do further down the street). Plus, you're right, there are more than one person wearing a black thong under a pair of jeans, but not in a white truck, on a certain street, on a certain side of the street. Either way, I agree with that it's no big deal, she was showing her ass to the public, now she is showing it to the public on the internet, world wide.
Here is a link showing her face:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&q=museum&near=San+Francisco,+California,+United+States&ie=UTF8&view=map&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.77756,-122.504935&cbp=1,216.07407380852,0.634781809656328,3&ll=37.808292,-122.494297&spn=0.116908,0.147114&z=13 - oriondarkwood, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Darn so much for staying all night clicking on streets to find someone having sex in the bedroom or in a car...
- mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14 Everyone who would want this censored is forgetting how awesome it would be to have these images years down the road. Imagine if you could look at a "street view" of New York in the 1800s, or even in the 70's. This is as good a feel as you can get of being in a city or time you've never been to. For that reason alone, I wouldn't mar it up with blurs and censorship.
- Tenroh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I generally try to leave name calling out of a comment, but are you retarded?
You posted the picture three times in this thread and it's not even the proper picture, read the damn story you fool. - cynicalirony, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Here's the link: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&q=museum&near=San+Francisco,+California,+United+States&ie=UTF8&view=map&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.777452,-122.504927&cbp=1,289.875024308419,0.628713401659621,3&ll=37.784792,-122.502236&spn=0.015093,0.029182&z=15
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9"Google should advertise when they're in your neighborhood."
Great idea. Then I can make sure my vehicles are washed, the lawn is looking good, and that temporary goatse guy billboard is installed in front of the house. - Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10@qevlhma93 (#7089309)
Post that link one more time. I dare you. - mt066, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Come on now, maybe one day I woke up hungover and staggered over to the 7-11 for some advil. Is it really fair if my image gets put up all over the internet like with the caption "HAHA stupid redneck doood LOLZ!!!" Just cause I look like crap walking across the street doesn't mean I'd be willing to stand out at halftime during the Superbowl looking like I do. Still though kind of a bummer that theyre taking away the funny embarrassing stuff.
- shawnz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@Tenroh
four actually. - daurkin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@skubiszm
That photo was the funniest I've seen so far, but please tell me you still don't think he was peeing on the side of the road. If you move up and down the road you'll see the time lapse of him working on his bike tire.
My favorite is the easter egg of ET on the side of the road. - noisuf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8There has always been that option to flag a picture or request removal. And if the girl is upset that her picture was taken, then should she have been visible from the street to begin with?
- JDoorjam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Actually, no, that isn't (though that picture has also gotten a lot of attention recently). RTFA.
- anarchytv, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4So what if a guy in a black van came around your house, took pictures of your back yard, your car, your front yard, your roof, windows, etc. You were chilling out in your back yard by the pool. And then he put them on the internet. Invasion of privacy? Creep you out?
Now put a Google logo on the side of that same van? You'd be out there in a flash mob wanting to get your picture taken and on the internet. Something mind control creepy about the word google and what's going on, let me tell you. Its like baby gaa gaa plus oogle, gets in your brain... can't... get... the word.. out.. just google it
Now what if the same van was MSN live search. Or hotbot. Or a creepy picture of Askjeeves butler... would you call the cops? - wbgo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4***** 'em. Google should advertise when they're in your neighbourhood. There's gonna be a great big picture of my arse on Google Maps, oh yes.
- Heyseuss, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't know how I'd feel about anything being festooned.
- green67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3well I guess I'm not gonna complain about my messy carport any more......now if they could only catch my foxy neighbor in her thong!...humana humana humana.....
- johnpaul191, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5i smell a troll.
how old is your machine? i can use it fine on a G4 from January 2000. that's 7.5 years old now! i also can view it all on a 2001 iBook G3 500 MHz that runs 10.4.x adequately. that's over 6 years old (and only 384 MBs RAM). it's not like a newer machine of course, but those Macs still run. i would bet your older Mac would run it even faster if you put on YellowDog or some form of Mac hardware tuned Linux and Firefox.
if you can run OS X, you can run a current web browser. that probably means machines from 2+ years before that. OS 9 Macs (or older) have less options, but there may still be one or two. - ferociouslola, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Lame... I wanted more pictures like that.
- lowerlogic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I found it odd that they removed the entire 360 degree panorama when they could have just censored/blurred out the part with the woman's underwear.
- cwcentral, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2ok, I maybe modded down on this idea, but I wonder if this can be abused--like have a good number of users (digg for instance) submit requests by the boat load and have a good portion of streetview images removed.
Cause I'm waiting for the advertisers to figure out to put up banners when a google van is planned to roll by for free advertising--then we're with a website...littered with ads again. - Heyseuss, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3ahh, updated browser (couldn't remember the last time i did that) = fixed.
- SheilaNoya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I was starting to worry about this Google thing. I lay out naked on my upper deck several days per week (working on that perfect tan). I looked up my address but fortunately the deck is empty in the Google view. WHEW!!!
- wmarcello, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We're all just a stone's throw away from being on reality TV 24/7. Anyone who thinks that's ok isn't seeing the big picture.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is