Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Google's newest widget has questionable ethics. Do you really want to walk down the street never knowing whether your furtive nose-picking has been captured and broadcast to the Google-using public?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Google My Bedroom

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted June 13, 2007.


Google's newest widget has questionable ethics. Do you really want to walk down the street never knowing whether your furtive nose-picking has been captured and broadcast to the Google-using public?
Advertisement

A couple of weeks ago Google announced its latest map widget with much fanfare. Called Street View, it's an option on Google Maps that gives you (literally) a view from street level of the address you're searching for. When you go to Google Maps, click "Street View" in the upper right corner (not all cities have it -- try San Francisco or New York), and you'll get a little icon shaped like a human that you can move around the city grid. Move the human into place, click it, and suddenly you find yourself looking at a picture of the houses on the street. You can navigate down the block with arrows, even turning your point of view left or right to get a full 360-degree view of the spot.

All the images on Street View were taken over the past few months by a camera mounted on a roving van. Later Google used special software to "knit" the discrete pictures together, creating the illusion that you're seeing seamless images of streets. If this sounds futuristic to you, it's not -- a couple of years ago, Amazon made a similar service available via its search tool A9. But after Google hired Udi Manber, who ran A9 for Amazon, the service went downhill, and it's now no longer available. Instead we have Google's Street View.

When you first use Street View, it feels like Google has turned the real world into a video game. I recently took a "walk" all around a San Francisco neighborhood where I might like to live. By clicking the arrow, I moved down Guerrero Street, "looking" to my right and left at the houses and local businesses to figure out how many blocks my potential residence would be from crucial things like cafés and a grocery store. I felt like I was in the virtual world Second Life, except that I couldn't fly and most of the people on the street weren't giant centaurs with wings and magic powers.

Still, it was hard to take my eyes off the people on the street. Captured on film without their knowledge or permission, they'll be online for all to see for at least a couple of years -- possibly more. Some naughty bloggers over at Wired.com have already asked people to submit the best "street sightings" they've found on Street View. Several pictures of semi-naked people sunbathing or undressing near open windows turned up right away, as did pictures of people pissing against buildings. Searchers also found a picture of somebody being arrested (Google took that one down), as well as a snapshot of two women on San Francisco's Hyde Street who appear to be exchanging money for drugs. And there are thousands more like these.

What are the ethics involved here? Is this an invasion of people's privacy? All the photographs were taken in public places, and therefore nobody in them has any reasonable expectation of privacy under the law. But then again, privacy laws weren't written with Street View in mind. It's lawful to eavesdrop on people on the street because they're in public. But is it lawful to publish online in perpetuity a picture of someone that captures him or her making out with somebody at a bus stop? Soon, lawsuits may seek to answer that very question.

In the meantime, Google is hoping you won't ask because you're so impressed with the prettiness and usability of its shiny new thing. As I mentioned before, I've already found the service helpful in my search for a new place to live. It might also be good for figuring out the best places to park near your destination, or whether a hotel is as nice and well located as it claims to be. Mostly, though, I don't know why anyone would consider Street View to be more of a useful tool than a slightly creepy toy. I suppose it could be a great way for stalkers and thieves to find houses that are isolated, shielded from the street by greenery, or accessible by bottom-floor windows without bars. One day, even burglars might find their targets by Googling.

For now, however, Google Street View only covers a few cities, and the interface is a little slow. But the van is still out there, taking pictures automatically, posting everything it sees online. And the interface will improve. Is the dubious convenience of this tool worth the privacy trade-off? Do you really want to walk down the street never knowing whether your furtive nose-picking or secret meeting with a colleague has been captured and broadcast to the Google-using public?

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: privacy, ethics, streetview, google

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who will not stop picking her nose furtively in public and reserves the right to be pissed if you publish a picture of her doing it.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the polyopticon society?
Posted by: DeAnander on Jun 14, 2007 5:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
back in the early days of humankind when we hung out in kin-groups -- sometimes in caves, or in longhouses or big tents or various other collective structures sized to fit a whole clan -- there wasn't a whole lot of privacy. eating, pissing, cooking, mating, quarrelling, childbirth, illness and death pretty much all happened in the "public" or at least the clan gaze. it was only later when we invented aristocracy that some people separated themselves rigorously from "the lesser folks" and had privacy -- sometimes even requiring their servants not to look upon them, on pain of punishment or death. then later we developed the fetish of privacy, scrupulously hiding certain activities from the general gaze, even denying their existence as much as we possibly can (the Victorians liked to deny physical sex and nudity -- we prefer to deny tenderness, ageing, infirmity, and death).

our electronic technology often seems to be taking us in two mutually opposing directions. it is increasingly severing us from our fellow mortals in a solipsistic world of headphones (and coming soon, video visors), individual tvs, etc; affluent families often have one tv per family member all in different rooms, and not only separate bedroom but separate study or office space for each partner. increasingly we are encouraged to interact with robot voices or GUIs rather than with human agents in our business dealings. only the cream of the aristocrats of olden times had so much separation from other people!

and yet at the same time we rush to replicate the social machinery of the village and the longhouse...

... reputation servers like Ebay and ratings-system blogs reproduce (imperfectly) the detailed interpersonal history and knowledge of village and tribal life, establishing 'face' and trust in the absence of physical interaction; ubiquitous State surveillance puts us all under the overseer's gaze much as our forebears were on the lord's estate; and ubiquitous cell phone cameras and minicams even the odds, enabling us to turn the overlords' Panopticon into a Polyopticon more reminiscent of the village, where everyone can observe anyone anytime.

this may be a good thing; much of what restrains bad actors from committing bad acts is the knowledge of being observed (unless the whole community is complicit, as in a lynching or other mass violence). or it may be a very bad thing for all the reasons AN offers in the lead story. my own internal jury remains out...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the polyopticon society? Posted by: lionhead
» lots of little big brothers? Posted by: lonpine
Good Points
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 15, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the author makes some excellent points! A photo can be misleading! Things are not always what they look like! It is one thing for security cameras to record something. They are not published on the net. It is not fair to be captured in an awkward moment and then have to live with it on the net for years. Don't they have some kind of technology that could obscure people's faces????? I know a few people in California who did something awful. They would go into private homes and place hidden cameras and spy on people. As far as I am concerned this is emotional rape!!!!! While this is not the same thing, I think that there is the potential for emotional damage to people who do not want their picture shown around the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OTOH
Posted by: DaBear on Jun 15, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to know wwhere the van is so I can run outside dressed in my dwarf costume and become a 3D avitar on Street View... seriously avant gamers should jump on this opportunity to become living game pieces. Although we'd need to steal the van or copy it to make one of our own so we could map all the movements of a game in progress... oh the possibilities of the shiny new thing, indeed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Theology, Theosophy and Google and High Tech
Posted by: talkville on Jun 16, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God and the Free Market. It's just Cyclops, and he stands like Gulliver outside of History, nose in the air, looking at everything done, everything thought, everything felt. He Googles, he sees through Windows, he hears analogically and digitally. He is Security, he demands Fear. And man, he is RICH!!

You're on the money again, keep writing - it's needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oh hum
Posted by: igmuska on Jun 19, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you really think about it, there is many webcams throughout this country. I wonder if we are on the way to having to have them in our own homes.
I also wonder if the "user anonymity" of the Web will also be subject to this type of intrusion into our privacy? Or is the term "privacy" just another illusion of definition?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]