Stephen Withers
Wednesday, 06 August 2008 16:27
Opinion and Analysis
Page 1 of 3
If you want to know what a particular urban area looks like without actually visiting it, Google Maps' Street View is about as good as it gets. But not everyone is happy about what's on display.
As I see it, there is no fundamental problem with people taking photos in public places, whether for personal or commercial purposes.
Think of the alternative: newspapers wouldn't be able to bring you images of events such as political protests, factory fires or particularly bad traffic snarls. And you wouldn't be able to take snaps of your kids playing on the beach, your significant other at the park, or even of your own home in case someone else's property was also captured for posterity.
Furthermore, I'd argue that you should be entitled to take photos anywhere that someone else is or can photograph you. Yes, there should be exceptions for genuine security reasons such as customs halls at airports and other government installations, but certainly not for shopping centres or railway stations and carriages.
I can accept that there is a difference between newspaper photos that are seen by a few million people, and images used in Street View that are accessible to billions of people around the world.
But does it really matter? For those who simply object to images of their homes appearing on the web, a Scott McNeally like "get over it" seems an appropriate response. The view of your house from the street is inherently public, so don't whinge about it being a matter of privacy.
So what's Google doing that's so wrong? I'll spell out one very real issue on
page 2.
