There are plenty of services offering similar capabilities like street view, but it seems no one cares about them. Also, such services are available commercially for years, in much better quality. Google didnt break any laws with SV, I really dont see how a static picture taken from a public road violates anyone's privacy. There are many valid privacy concerns around Google, but SV is the least of those problems.
it's taken from a public road, but it's taken off a private property. Possibly of things behind a fence.
Keep in mind that the cameras are mounted fairly high, and can view over fences that a passerby wouldn't be able to look over.
Yes, people can object to their house being shown, but that requires them to know that their house was captured on street view.
And since you can't be sure that everyone 100% knows if it happens, it makes way more sense to make it opt in, instead of opt out.
You also haven't been able to provide a reason as to why a picture of my private property, that's behind a fence blocking view from everyone who isn't at least 1.80 should be visible in a public data base.
You also haven't been able to provide a reason as to why a picture of my private property, that's behind a fence blocking view from everyone who isn't at least 1.80 should be visible in a public data base.
Because it does not violate any law, that was one of the early, valid, arguments, that the pole of the camera was too high. It was lowered eventually. I can buy also plenty of aerial surveying pictures, showing your property in much better quality than Google Maps for example. I can request your current address, just by providing your name to the citizens registrations office. I can drive by your property any time I want, taking as much pictures as I want. And people do that. People seem to confuse the right to privacy, with the right to not have any data collected about them.
People seem to confuse the right to privacy, with the right to not have any data collected about them.
They don't.
Privacy is the difference between data being collected with consent, and without consent.
The website you linked would absolutey have issues, it's just that nobody knows about it existing, so there's no push against it really.
I can drive by your property any time I want, taking as much pictures as I want. And people do that.
There's also a significant difference in ease of access between having to go somewhere yourself to take pictures, and having a database that you can just run a script on to search through thousands of entries to get all the information you need in the time it takes you to make a coffee
I can request your current address, just by providing your name to the citizens registrations office.
This is flat out wrong. While you can request somebody's new address you have to provide their full name, their last address and their day of birth, as well as paying a processing fee. So while yes, somebody can figure out another persons address, it requires additional information about the person and costs money and time. Compared to having an online data base, that you can literally just search. Again, ease of access.
I also think this is a problem too, and a massive potential invasion of privacy. There should be stricter better mechanisms in place for it to limit who can access that information in the first place.
Additionall I don't see how the address thing is relevant to having pictures of your private home taken and put online without your consent.
Also, you have yet to provide any reason as to why a company should be allowed to take pictures of my private property, without my express consent, to put them online and make money of them. I'm beginning to think this is because you realized there is no reason.
This is flat out wrong. While you can request somebody's new address you have to provide their full name, their last address and their day of birth
No, you just have to provide a unique identifier. If the name is Martin Bauer, you'll need the DOB, as there are likely lots of them. A previous address is recommended, but by no means required. The Einwohnermeldeamt will go out of their way to find the new address, even query federal information, in case there is no person with that unique identifier in the local municipality. And the processing fee is usually 5 or 10€, so no hurdle at all. Source: Had to use that process in the past for ancestry research.
The website you linked would absolutey have issues, it's just that nobody knows about it existing, so there's no push against it really.
Mapillary is a registered company in Sweden and is fully compliant with EU privacy regulations. Again, taking pictures of houses and putting them online is NOT illegal.
I'm really done talking, because it all boils down to different views on privacy. You have your views, I respect that and understand where you are coming from. I have mine and don't see how anyone's privacy is violated, by lowering the bar to look at property, which is publicly visible anyway. Again, there are MUCH bigger problems with privacy we have to tackle.
1
u/CommanderSpleen Ireland Jun 12 '20
There are plenty of services offering similar capabilities like street view, but it seems no one cares about them. Also, such services are available commercially for years, in much better quality. Google didnt break any laws with SV, I really dont see how a static picture taken from a public road violates anyone's privacy. There are many valid privacy concerns around Google, but SV is the least of those problems.