Why the villagers who sent the Google Street View car packing are NIMBYs gone mad

Look at this picture from the internet. It is just the sort of thing that people up and down the land are getting upset about. It clearly shows someone's house and several other houses. It must be from Google Street View. It must be a terrible invasion of the householder's privacy. Bring out your burning torches and pitchforks, let us kill the monster of technology.

Actually, no. I found this with a few quick clicks on a property website (here if you want to buy the house). There are hundreds of thousands of photos of properties on the web - with pictures of the back garden, the bedrooms etc. They give the house's location and sometimes even the house number. It is a burglar's paradise.

But I don't hear anyone protesting - I don't see estate agents getting lynched (well, not for invading people's privacy at least).

My point is this: the pictures taken by the Street View car are perfectly legal. You cannot stop someone taking a picture of your house from a public street. If you were to try to stop someone and physically restrain them, you could be charged with assault. If I wanted to take a video of you walking down your street, I can. You may not like it but there is nothing you can do about it. That is what TV news crews do all the time to ministers who have been putting in dodgy expenses.

Nor should you be able to do anything about it. In common spaces, there has never been the sort of privacy that so many people seem to be accusing Google of invading. I can walk down any public street in the land and peer over the hedge.

What Google has done with Street View is make it easier to stroll down any street in the land. They have used the power of technology to open up publicly available information to millions of people's computers.

They started doing it with web pages, moved on to maps, to books and now to the streets of the world. People don't object to the estate agent's pictures on the web because they can see the utility, the convenience. A nice picture sells the house. Do you remember what it was like to buy a house before property websites? It was a nightmare of estate agent details, trailing round one property after another. Now, thanks to technology, most of that trailing round can be done from the comfort of your laptop.

Google is offering that convenience with Street View. You can travel to another city and really see what it is like. You can walk the streets (admittedly from a fixed time in the past when the Google car took its pictures) - and get a better idea of things than from hundreds of pages in the best guide books. When I moved to San Francisco for The Times, we researched where to live using Google Street View. It was invaluable.

Travel broadens the mind and the villagers of Broughton have closed minds. They don't want the convenience of technology to darken their doors, ignoring the fact that the world of data, of greater access to information is leaving them behind. Not In My Back Yard, they cry. They're mad.

Comments

[Jersey]

Well said Mike.

[Lauren]

Such a sensible post! Seconded.

[Lee]

the difference is simple enough really....no-one has ever been convicted of using a property site to work out which roofs might have lead worth stealing. Say what you like but Google street view is at best unnecessary and at worst a burglars best friend

[Roger Bradley]

What a bunch of idiots. So they're worried about their privacy and security?
What do they do? Ensure their actions are reported all over the internet and news. State that they live in an "affluent area".
Well done you dorks, now every burglar in the world knows that your village is a juicy target.

[Tom L]

The irony is that if Google blanks out their village they are more likely to have inquisitive minds going to have a look at it!

[Naechel]

When the allies invaded mainland Europe in 1945 they relied on photography to see as best as they could what was what. Many people may find these photographs of some use in planning holidays or buying a house but lets put all the truth on the table here. This Google imagery together with the aerial views websites is valuable information for burglars for they can see the house approaches, escape routes and so can plan their indulgent, selfish, care-deficient burglaries. Those who think all robberies are random are in Lala land. Most people do not think very deeply and are too passive for their own good. So well done those Broughton residents who stood up for their beliefs. If a few people had dealt with Hitler before the festering sore had turned into a viscous plague we would not have had 20 million dead. Prevention is better than cure.

[Barry]

My first thought on reading this story was to visit Broughton, with camera, solely to seek out houses to photograph and publish on the web. The poor sad soul who started this obstruction of a legal right is also interfering with MY liberties. It is my right to walk down his street. look at his house and maybe, if I whim, to photograph. As I may photograph Buckingham Palace, Big Ben or 'At Anchor'. Or should I be banned from walking in Broughton in case I remember details of houses and sometime in the future commit a burglary? or try to sell them double glazing, a new door, or a paint job?

[Peter]

Google monetizes content. If Google seeks to make money from pictures of your house, then you should be due a fee. Google understands Microfinance and so do the good folk from the grand duchy of broughton. It isn't nimby-ism, they seek an arbitrage ?

It is The Times which seems to be stuck in a timewarp with the attitude that we should be happy on the plantation whilst corporations can just make capital from the everyday lives of normal folk.

Andrew lloyd Webber made a very similar point to the House of Lords yesterday. True, he only focuses on copyright infringement, but the basic point is the same. All online content has a fee attached or is an act of arbitrage.

[Richard]

I couldn't agree more. Street view is a modern miracle and the scale of Googles project still takes my breath away.

Glad this story has drawn unprecidented attention to Broughton now.

[Charles Strong]

Many of these NIMBYs would like to have had Googles Street View around in 1809, even in 1909, just to see their house or their ancesters house in those days.
To see one of their ancesters in the street would be a great find.

In 3009, very little photographic record of us and our abodes will have survived and have been passed on.
Our computorised passport photo's held by HM gov and Google street View will have.

Some ancester right now in 1000 years will be using face recognition programs to match the two up.
That is, matching it up with the unedited version of Google street View, that shows peoples faces.
(It isn't instantly done whilst the car is moving along, that's a pack of lies!!)
This will perhaps be released in 100 years time.
And will be very much welcomed by our future ancesters as many of us do with the UK census details released every 10 years.

Even though it is believed by some that the CIA are directly behind Google, and all the data collated by google is analised and stored by them.
Just google, "Google-CIA connection"
We shouldn't let this worry us.
.
Or should we?.

[Raj]

I do agree with Mike's comments. People are getting too paranoid about this new technology. There are numerous CCTVs in UK and no body complains about it. Knowledge is power. The plus side is that people would save a lot of money on petrol trying to explore and find the correct place. I am eagerly waiting for Google to come to my city and take pictures.

If one is scared of theft in houses, then one should understand that mere pictures don't allow a person to carry out a theft. The thief has to break open the house, and I assume that people would have taken all security measures to prevent that.

[Motoloco]

It made me laugh too. The so called "village" of Broughton, where the rebels live, is within Milton Keynes, possibly the most litter-infested town in Britain (quite an accolade in itself)and certainly not the place for any self-respecting burglars

[Stu]

Totally agree, Mike! Sadly, NIMYism is rife in the UK, and as a nation we allow the vocal minority far too much power.

[Aylyn]

You are quite right you should be able to take pictures in the streets of the street and of people in the street. However The Home Secretary is pushing through new laws relating to taking photos of "sensitive" buildings and the Police, Traffic Warden et al. These would be illegal and subject to rigorous prosecution. PC Plod is really in his element now with J Smith's blessing. Of course it is all down to Anti-terrorisim

[Martin]

Naechel,

I knew it wouldn't be long before someone mentioned Hitler. Well done.

[Paul Harper]

Well said, sir. It is closed-mind, "Daily Mail" thinking like the villagers that has made such a mess of this country.

[Andy Gibson]

I've had a great idea to wind all the whingers up -

I'm going to register the website www.notongooglestreetview.co.uk

If you find some mardy NIMBYs house blanked out on Google Street View, then go to my website and fill in a little form with some details.

My team of crack time wasters and busy bodies will then be despatched to the location where we will take high resolution photos to within an inch of the law, and upload them to our site!

[Rob]

Quite right. Not sure it's NIMBYism though - just people fed up with the surveillance culture of today and finally reaching the last straw

[Peter Higgins]

Why is a private corporation allowed to make profit from showing pictures of my home?? If a class action law suit is brought against Google demanding financial compensation for using images of peoples homes maybe a fair result can be found. This is not about privacy, this is about a corporation exploiting people for profit.

[Hugh]

Paranoid NIMBYs trying to justify their absurd, hysterical over-reaction. Pitiful.

[BMB]

Wow, did Naechel just draw parallels between Google and the Third Reich?

You've got to love the indignant anger of the UK population.

[Daniel de la Cruz]

Absolutely right!

I actually love checking out the areas on Street Views that I will visit when travelling to major cities in America. It is a very useful tool and often made me change my mind about certain hotels, that appear extremely glamorous on their websites until you actually stand infront of a broken down shed for which you have to pay $100 a night and is located 50 miles from the ciy centre!

[Andrew]

No supporter of Streetview has yet answered the simple question of what legitimate purpose it serves publishing photos of residential streets. I can see that being able to virtually walk around the tourist centres of major cities might be very useful - but not so for people's houses. There are a lot of dodgy potential uses including casing properties for theft, stalking, flogging double glazing and downright nosiness though (has anyone else noticed that the camera is at a height that allows it to look over hedges and fences?).

The major difference between this and Estate Agent sites is that you specifically ask for those images to be placed for a limited time and they do not give specifics such as street number. Streetview is very different. Yes, if you know that Google has published images of your home you can of course request that they are taken down. Unfortunately it is not just the technically aware that are affected. People who don't have an internet connection and have never even heard of Streetview are just as violated.

This is a classic example of why just because something can be done, it does not necessarily mean that it should be done.

[agoreing]

Actually Raj, many people are concerned and complain about CCTV cameras.

Everyone has a right to walk down that street and take photographs. Those who do have at least made the effort to get there and take that walk. That right is in no way infringed if Google view is prevented from taking pictures in that street.

The point of an estate agents picture is to sell a house. The point of google view is to make money in large part by pandering to the wants of the prurient or the lazy.

[Jeremy]

To Lee below:

I'm interested to see you provide evidence for someone convicted for using google street maps to commit burglary.

Assuming you manage this, shall we compare it with evidence for individuals convicted for using their eyes while picking a target?

As the author has already clearly stated: google is not providing anything that cannot already be obtained using eyes and a pair of legs.

[Frankie D.]

Lee & Naechel, are you really saying that burglars are unable to walk along a street and get the same or better info?

[john]

Love and peace to Google, but people are entitled not to want stuff in their back yard. We seem to have invented this new ethical offence of 'nimbyism', and you notice those who bandy this word about aren't throwing their own back yards open to all comers but implying - with some relief - how compliant somebody else ought to be. Well I tell you what, instead of my back yard, let's put it in yours, wind farm, sewage works whatever. You'd be happy with that. Fair? OK, we need these things but can we please leave out the self-righteousness.

[C Burghard]

Most people miss the point here,to whom does Google belong?,to whom does the CIA belong? from where do the CIA recruit? who really controls the CIA? all good questtions, but nobody is asking them. Do people really believe that photographs of their homes will actally be deleted from the database? DREAM ON !

[Richard]

The argument that Streetview is a burglar's best friend is not only crazy but also dangerous. To the vast majority of users this is a valuable tool.

Some people may end up using it for evil, but then that goes for anything. Using that rationale let's also ban knives, aircraft, cars etc.

[Matthew Webster]

While I agree with your direction, I don't agree with your point that taking a picture of a random person in the street is legal, necessarily. For example, child protection laws require that all parents present at, say, an amateur karate competition provide their consent before anyone is allowed to take photos of the event. Further, broadcasters are required to have interviewees sign a consent form before material, most likely taken in the street, can be used on air.
The grey area here, of course, is the difference between taking group photos in public and individual's photos in a closed space. One is open and encompasses indiscrete numbers; the other is directed. The problem arises, I believe, because some people think that the detail (or existence) of the photos being taken (by Google SV) is more direct and personal than should be allowed.
However, a pretty good image of properties (albeit a rather plan view) can be obtained of any property (including buildings I'm sure the government don't want imaged) on Google Maps, MultiMap, StreetMap, etc. No-one is complaining there.
The end result being that if the data being reproduced is personal and unsigned, there is a valid complaint. If not, it's just mapping and please, shut up.

[Mike Harvey]

So what would those who think Street View aids burglars do? Ban all maps? Because they help burglars too. Anyone who argues that Street View is bad because of the chances it might help thieves might as well go back to quill pens and parchment.

Those who say Google has no right to profit from photos of our houses is as wrong-headed as those who might force tourists to pay if they happen to be in the background of a snap in Trafalgar Square.

You do not own a picture of your house, never have, never will. Google has landed on a way to make these pictures accessible and useful. And it is free to use. Enjoy or ignore but don't blame them for making technological advances.

As for the CIA bloke, give me a break!

[ptah]

Jeremy: here you go, evidence of a crime committed via Google Earth.

http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/4202131.No_jail_for_Google_Earth_lead_thief/

But for a more scientific analysis we had better give the duration of your proposed experiment a realistic time frame. Assuming that civilisation has been around for 5,000 years (they probably had baddies in ancient egypt) shall we meet back in another 5,000 years and see how Google earth compares in aiding burglary?

[Al]

What a fine example of Godwin's law in action Naechel gave us there.

[Anne-Marie Armour]

I'd be delighted to see my ordinary 3-bed semi on Google, but it would be a different matter if I owned a large house that looked like it contained plenty of valuable items. I've read that burglars look for well-kept houses with an expensive-looking car in the drive. That search will now be much easier thanks to Google.

[Nonkey1]

What's wrong with Google Streetview?
Where shall we start?
1. It's yet another tool for lazy journalists. Most UK newspaper sites have already got their "Look at this whacky pic we found with no effort or expense on our part whatsoever" sidebar all set up.
2. It's a tool that will get better - expect realtime views of everywhere any time soon. That will be a great boon to the state, and as we've seen with its lamentable record in China, Google is ready and willing to do whatever the state tells it
3. The real motive is voyeurism, plain and simple. Who visits towns to walk down residential streets? Is Google showing us anything we couldn't find out with a bit of effort? (Relax - I'm talking about online effort. God forbid that any of you should actually have to move from the sofa.)
4. It's yet more surveillance. We're already the most spied on nation on earth. Of course, judging by the comments on this blog, some people don't see this as a problem. That will change after the first prosecution for parking/litter/putting the wrong thing in the wrong bin/etc. resulting from council spies clocking something on streetview.
5. This is part of Google's weird 'do-no-evil' strategy to get everyone and everything everywhere on the Google grid. It's touching that so many of you trust Google. But it's a mistake.

We're surrendering the whole notion that our homes are private, and our communities are only semi-public. At the moment, the only people who have to negotiate access to these spaces are the people who live there. Anyone else - the government, the council, Google, and now, Times readers, it seems - just wanders around taking our pictures.

I'm glad the people on Broughton tried to defend their privacy. And I'm sad they have to defend it, not just from Google and the state, but, now, it seems, from other citizens.

[Pete]

Andrew | Apr 3, 2009 12:58:53 PM

Since when does a British subject have to prove what he is doing is legal ?

On the contrary; it is up to you to prove guilt.

I have some reservations; but; under common law that does not give me any right to stop you with out a court order. To get the court order I have to prove that Google's actions will be harmful.

We do NOT live in a dictatorship where we have to ask to do everything.

[Ric]

I wonder how long I would have to stand in my garden with two fingers raised in the air before it appears on Google Earth ?

[Darren Ward]

And does the street view show the ruddy great dog that could be waiting in the garden or behind the front door? No!

Whingeing for the sake of it. It's a great tool for visiting cities all over the World.

Their reasoning against it is laughable.

[Luc Sam]

Street view is a useful tool. Like ALL other tools, from the pen & paper to the (mobile) phone, it can be used by salesmen, writers, journalists, the disabled, house hunters and, yes, even criminals. But nobody wants these other tools banned. Street view is also "green", since it is likely to reduce otherwise necessary travelling.

And Naechel, EVERYTIME someone invokes the spectre of Hitler & the Nazis to an argument, you know they don't have a leg to stand on. 20 million REAL people, my grandfather included, did not die for you to raise a spurious, tasteless and disrespectful objection to a useful piece of technology. Shame on you.

[Graham]

My language skills must be failing me as I am now convinced that Broughton is an anagram of Royston Vasey (a local village for local people from the League of Gentlemen)

[Jeff]

You seem to have mentioned all the good points whilst neglecting to do so with the bad. Street View as you have said is an amazing tool - but it will increase the number of successful burglaries. the key difference is that before, you needed an actual, physical being to scope out the area - alert locals would therefore be able to take note of the person's appearance, that could be used for any future crime reports. Furthermore, the "scout" won't be able to get a detailed look - they may have to scurry around and make do with blurred photos whilst avoiding detection. Google Street View bypasses all that - high quality pictures from any angle, whilst allowing the would-be criminal the intelligence without sacrificing the anonymity.

[SK]

Try and take pictures of my house and kids and we'll see how many inches of the law are up your a$$!

Snap up some photos anywhere on my street and within minutes you'll get jumped and jacked for your camera.

Stand outside someone's house taking pictures and see what happens.

First, they'll come out and say,'What the hell do you think you're doing?'

"Taking photos to put on the internet.."

Yank! Smash! Biff...."Please..., please just let me go...arrrgggghhh"

[Jordan Burnham]

If they don't want Google to record there then they obviously have lots to hide!

[R Bingham]

Andrew

Legitimate use of Google?

It is the best thing to happen to those looking for a property to rent or buy. The photos in the estate agents only show the pretty bits. Google Earth and StreetView show you the abatoir round the back and the landfill site at the end of the road. The not-so-pretty bits.

A huge saving in time and money if you are moving any distance.

[Simon]

I nearly spat my tea out when I read your idea for www.notongooglestreetview.co.uk

fantastic.

Come on then! Where is it?