Lovely photoshop job on that second photo there, Daily Fail.

i really don't get this concept of privacy

The best way to be private is to not call attention to yourself. These dummies are doing it wrong.

I'm not sure who I hate more - the villagers who freaked out over the Google Street View Cars, or the tools who thought this was worthy of a widely-coordinated protest.

I think I'll just hate them all. This is the internet, after all.

'If our houses are plastered all over Goodgle it's an invitation for burglars to strike.'

Damn you Goodgle!

At least they have precendent: every town mapped by Street View has become a haven of scum and villany.

google earth has some nice photos of the area, too....

Bad_ad85: 'If our houses are plastered all over Goodgle it's an invitation for burglars to strike.'

Damn you Goodgle!

if they're that worried about it i bet they have some really great stuff to steal! where is this, again?

wow , these shiat heads have been on CCTV for years and they biatch about this ?! Fking nancys !

real shaman: google earth has some nice photos of the area, too....

That's it; we must form a human chain around the satellites...in...spaaaaace

The neighbors are morans. That said, so are the protesters.

I plan a mass protest of those protesting the protesters. Who is with me?

They discover they can land stealth fighters on their noses?

Holy crap... saw one of those cars in California recently, and we couldn't figure out what the hell that thing on top, was...

/No you cannot look at our affluence. Not your's!
//Do you have any grey poupon?

/No you cannot look at our affluence. Not your's!
//Do you have any grey poupon?

Oh, and John Holmes. Wahahahaha! This guy has the same name as the guy with the big penis! HAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

ducking out b4 the grammar police. [your's]

CHECK OUT MY SPORT JACKET!11111ONEONE

FTFA: "It has even been cited in divorce cases. Within a fortnight of the first wave of images going online, a London woman launched legal proceedings after spotting her husband's distinct Range Rover parked outside a female friend's house at a time when she believed he had been on a business trip."

Daily Fail does it again. Already proven false.

ScreamingInDigital: FTFA: "It has even been cited in divorce cases. Within a fortnight of the first wave of images going online, a London woman launched legal proceedings after spotting her husband's distinct Range Rover parked outside a female friend's house at a time when she believed he had been on a business trip."

Daily Fail does it again. Already proven false.

But but but..I read it on the internet..It MUST BE TRUE!

jwmc1971: wow , these shiat heads have been on CCTV for years and they biatch about this ?! Fking nancys !

I don't really buy the supposed problems of criminals casing property through Google Maps since the information so soon becomes out of date, although it has been to scout out metal roofing for subsequent theft, but copy pasta from the previous thread -

When high resolution CCTV camera footage starts being published on the internet, searchable down to a few feet, in perpetuity, there might be an equivalence. Since the vast majority of CCTV footage is never shared with anybody, low resolution, and kept for less than 90 days, it's not really the same. It's also fairly unlikely that Broughton even has any public CCTV cameras.

Massa Damnata: /No you cannot look at our affluence. Not your's!
//Do you have any grey poupon?

so filthy rich, when they want grey poupon the pull the stick out their arse, and smear it on the buns

"Another villager, John Holmes, said Street View was 'an invasion of our privacy' and said Google 'should have asked our permission'."

After his career, he's complaining about privacy?

My neighbor has an ever-present white persian cat that sits in the window of her ground floor London flat.

Google street view blurred its face. So glad its privacy has been protected.

It didn't however, blur the two workmen in the alleyway next door having a smoke.

Maybe this is one of those villages with some sort of dark secret they'd like to keep hidden like Werewolves or The Harvest.

The Daily Mail is Iranian? Who knew?

leperboy69: Lovely photoshop job on that second photo there, Daily Fail.

Famous for it...

Thanks for the specifics, DF. Found the area in live maps, where the bird's eye view gives a better view of those "private" areas:

Link (new window)

If that link doesn't work: http://snurl.com/f7m9k

leperboy69: Lovely photoshop job on that second photo there, Daily Fail.

Not a photoshop, that's the work of an expert shrubber.

It's about the right height, and not too expensive.

/Ni

jwmc1971: wow , these shiat heads have been on CCTV for years and they biatch about this ?! Fking nancys !

On top of the DNA that is taken from any arrested person in the U.K. to be put in a huge database. And isn't Jacqui Smith trying to turn Britian into a pure 1984, if not for the fact she currently has to deal with her husband's porn viewing habits?

I love the street view feature on google. If not for that I wouldn't have been able to catch my 14 year old daughter being not so innocent.

I was commenting to the wife about how Google sends these cars out to map streets so I punched up our address and suggested we "drive" to the local store on the corner. We panned the camera down the street and lo and behold, when we turned the corner there was our daughter at a friends house in the yard with her boyfriend. No big deal, but upon closer examination, we discovered he had her in a hug with his fingertips in the waistband of her pants.

/Yes I am a prude
//He still has his fingers
///Not her boyfriend anymore
////Or at least that is what her and her mom are telling me

skinink: On top of the DNA that is taken from any arrested person in the U.K. to be put in a huge database.

So the 60m people whose DNA isn't on the database should abandon all other attempts to maintain their privacy ?

The false dichotomy is strong in this thread.

chiark: leperboy69: Lovely photoshop job on that second photo there, Daily Fail.

Famous for it...

Okay, some of those, i have to wonder how the fark they even pulled them off, they're that bad....

FarkinNortherner: skinink: On top of the DNA that is taken from any arrested person in the U.K. to be put in a huge database.

So the 60m people whose DNA isn't on the database should abandon all other attempts to maintain their privacy ?

The false dichotomy is strong in this thread.

You have privacy from pictures taken from the road? Really?

ScreamingInDigital: leperboy69: Lovely photoshop job on that second photo there, Daily Fail.

Not a photoshop, that's the work of an expert shrubber.

It's about the right height, and not too expensive.

/Ni

did you see any trees recently felled by a herring?

jimmyjackfunk: ////Or at least that is what her and her mom are telling me

The bold part is why i wouldn't believe it....

loonatic112358: Massa Damnata: /No you cannot look at our affluence. Not your's!
//Do you have any grey poupon?

so filthy rich, when they want grey poupon the pull the stick out their arse, and smear it on their buns

fify and hot?

BobXXL: loonatic112358: Massa Damnata: /No you cannot look at our affluence. Not your's!
//Do you have any grey poupon?

so filthy rich, when they want grey poupon the pull the stick out their arse, and smear it on their buns

fify and hot?

for someone i'm sure

Intimité est mort. Vive le intimité!

The villagers complained Google had no right to take pictures of their homes, calling it an 'invasion of privacy' and an 'invitation for burglars to strike

Simple solution: when the Google car comes by, have a very large dog and "Beware of Dog" sign in your yard. Any thief who recons online first will think twice about your house.

Ed Willy: The villagers complained Google had no right to take pictures of their homes, calling it an 'invasion of privacy' and an 'invitation for burglars to strike

Simple solution: when the Google car comes by, have a very large dog and "Beware of Dog" sign in your yard. Any thief who recons online first will think twice about your house.

No they won't. No one falls for that stupid shiat.

tonesskin: You have privacy from pictures taken from the road? Really?

No, but, at risk of my own false dichotomy, it's arguable that you should have privacy from a photographic directory just as you do from the 'phone directory.

Mount a low-power laser "Google-blinder" turret on the front of the house.

(Didn't the Soviets try that against spy satellites in the cold war?)

FarkinNortherner: tonesskin: You have privacy from pictures taken from the road? Really?

No, but, at risk of my own false dichotomy, it's arguable that you should have privacy from a photographic directory just as you do from the 'phone directory.

Did you not read the part about how you can contact Google and ask for pictures of your house to be removed?

They don't have to, but they do anyway.

FarkinNortherner: tonesskin: You have privacy from pictures taken from the road? Really?

No, but, at risk of my own false dichotomy, it's arguable that you should have privacy from a photographic directory just as you do from the 'phone directory.

No you don't (though Google pulls them off anyway).

Did Google's streetview car visit this village:

Be seeing you!

FarkinNortherner: tonesskin: You have privacy from pictures taken from the road? Really?

No, but, at risk of my own false dichotomy, it's arguable that you should have privacy from a photographic directory just as you do from the 'phone directory.

If the property itself were personally identifiable in some way, I'd agree more.
This is more akin to having a photo of your phone in the phone book, with no name or number. (or maybe an approximate number, as google earth does)

Kinda childish, dont you think? Its my neigborhood, not yours, you cant look at it, I'm not going to share.....

/who TF are these people?

daychilde: Did you not read the part about how you can contact Google and ask for pictures of your house to be removed?

Post hoc, yes. How long is the image online before it's removed ?

They don't have to, but they do anyway.

Actually, in England and Wales they probably do have to. The Information Commissioner is still working on this one.