Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Angry Villagers Run Google Out of Town 1188

Posted by samzenpus
from the and-stay-out dept.
Barence writes "A Google Street View car has been chased out of a British village by angry residents. The car was taking photographs of Broughton in Buckinghamshire for Google's when it was spotted by a local resident who warned the car not to enter the village then roused his neighbors, who surrounded the vehicle until the driver performed a U-turn and left. 'This is an affluent area,' protester Paul Jacobs said. 'We've already had three burglaries locally in the past six weeks. If our houses are plastered all over Google it's an invitation for more criminals to strike. I was determined to make a stand, so I called the police.'"


This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Angry Villagers Run Google Out of Town

Comments Filter:
  • !streisandeffect (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 02, 2009 @06:21PM (#27438211)
    This isn't the Streisand Effect, you troglodytes. Learn what that is before you go shrieking your confessions to being magnificently retarded.
  • Re:cant wait (Score:2, Informative)

    by iamhassi (659463) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @06:30PM (#27438357) Journal
    "Please post the google maps pictures of the crowd...I cant wait to see it!"

    Am I the only one that read this article and thought "Gee it'd be fun to walk down the street with a flashmob [wikipedia.org] all snapping photos of the houses and posting them all over flicker!"
  • Angry Mob Wins? (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Raven (30575) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @06:36PM (#27438427) Homepage

    So the bizarre flashmob of angry residents barricades a public road and illegally blocks Google from taking photos from the public streets? This is in the UK... those people are already putting up with a billion cameras, what's one more?

  • by dueledge (921380) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @06:52PM (#27438627)
    I think you mean the league of gentlemen
  • Re:!streisandeffect (Score:3, Informative)

    by Elwood P Dowd (16933) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Thursday April 02, 2009 @06:56PM (#27438677) Journal

    'This is an affluent area,' protester Paul Jacobs said. 'We've already had three burglaries locally in the past six weeks. If our houses are plastered all over Google it's an invitation for more criminals to strike. I was determined to make a stand, so I called the police.'"

    Don't take pictures of our houses! We are hella rich! We have hella money, just lying around! Taking pictures is just like begging people to steal from us!

    That is deeply related to the Streisand Effect, if not the same thing.

  • by neo (4625) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @07:05PM (#27438773)

    I can't figure out where to take my camera, can you give me a link to this location on Google Maps?

    Oh here it is.

    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Buckinghamshire&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.754532,114.257812&ie=UTF8&ll=51.880332,-0.873456&spn=0.019895,0.05579&t=h&z=15 [google.com]

    Don't blink as you drive through.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 02, 2009 @07:07PM (#27438787)

    Try taking a photograph of the Hollywood Sign - it's protected by trademark or copyright law and the folks in Hollywood do go after people.

    Maybe not so much. Try opening Google Earth and typing "hollywood sign" you will not only see the sign (without trademark attribution) but several amateur photos of it (also without attribution).

  • Watch out, realtors! (Score:5, Informative)

    by c0d3g33k (102699) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @07:07PM (#27438791)

    They will be coming for you next for put stuff like the following online:

    http://www.homes24.co.uk/property/search/?ps_type=1&loc=Aylesbury&prop_type=&min_price=0&max_price=0&min_bedrooms=0&keywords=&maxdist=0&age=- [homes24.co.uk]

    I wonder how posting full price info, detailed descriptions of the home, exterior *and* interior photos is less revealing than driving down the street with a camera mounted on the car. I suppose the xenophobia response doesn't get triggered when it's members of the local community that engage in privacy-violating activities.

  • Re:Glad to see.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mlyle (148697) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @07:23PM (#27438971)

    It's not as if Google doesn't pull photos all the time from Streetview due to people requesting it.

    I've made repeated requests to Google to pull a couple of images of my property from streetview, and they've been ignored for a year now-- both by email and by the 'report inappropriate image' option.

    So despite Google's overtures to the contrary, I don't think they yank anything unless they are sued.

  • Re:Glad to see.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lakitu (136170) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @07:30PM (#27439067)

    Of course it is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZS.html [cornell.edu]

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html [cornell.edu]

    But just as a thermal imager captures only heat emanating from a house, so also a powerful directional microphone picks up only sound emanating from a houseand a satellite capable of scanning from many miles away would pick up only visible light emanating from a house. We rejected such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in Katz, where the eavesdropping device picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth. Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technologyincluding imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home. While the technology used in the present case was relatively crude, the rule we adopt must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.

    The only difference being that it is not a government organization, but that's kind of besides the point.

    not that the uproar over this is any less silly, but if you're going to mock the outrage, at least properly mock it. I wonder if this angry mob was caught on CCTV?

  • by skinlayers (621258) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @07:33PM (#27439103)

    How to say this politely...


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html [independent.co.uk]

    [...]Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms[...]

    http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html [cdc.gov]
    2005 CDC Statistics for firearm related deaths in the US (latest that are available):
    Number of Deaths: 30,694

    Now, tell me again how gun control does nothing to prevent crime?

  • by Mansing (42708) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @07:37PM (#27439137)

    http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]

    The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

  • by Dun Malg (230075) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @11:37PM (#27440997) Homepage
    They go after people for taking non-informative pictures of miscellaneous microwave antennas and a big repeater array? Un-fucking-likely. [wikimedia.org]

    There's no access to those areas, but only because that's where the city of LA has a number of fire, police, and agency radio repeaters. There's an emergency communications bunker up there, but it's not the governor's, it's the city's--- and it's hardly secret.
  • Re:Glad to see.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by einhverfr (238914) <chris DOT travers AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday April 02, 2009 @11:40PM (#27441005) Homepage Journal

    I don't know how it helps you if you are an honest citizen; but for a criminal such functions may be of some use (though I saw some comments made by people "in the know" who say it isn't so.)

    Some examples for how it helps ME as an honest citizen:

    1) When I am going somewhere I am not familiar with, I can do a preview of the route on Google Street. Then I can more easily note landmarks, etc. what key intersections look like, etc.

    2) If my wife calls me and says she is lost, if I can get Google Street up, I can get a fair sense of what she is seeing once I have an intersection. Much, much better than guiding someone around over the phone using a map.

    I will leave the points about virtual tourism to others and focus exclusively on PRACTICAL value.

  • by Chazerizer (934553) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @11:44PM (#27441017)
    Actually, I can do "almost" anything I want with a photograph that I take. I took it, therefore, I hold the copyright on that particular photo (though not on anything in the photo). Regardless of resolution, intent, or anything else. The exceptions would seem to be the following:

    1) Using something for commercial purposes with intent to hurt the offended target in a market. I can't show happy, satisfied people leaving a White Castle and tell people how happy they were they ate at Burger King. We don't really have that problem here. Google's not really treading on anyone's copyright.

    2) I photograph something lewd, indecent, or outright illegal and post it in a public forum (like Google maps). If these people really wanted to keep Google away, they sunbathe nude in their front yards and Google couldn't use the pictures. And it would probably actually work, even if you couldn't look your neighbors in the eye for a few weeks.

    3) I persistently seek out a single target for the purposes of my photography. Then it qualifies as stalking. Taking a photo of every house in a neighborhood isn't stalking by any measure. And frankly, stalking without trespassing or burglary is hardly stalking at all anymore. After all, look at the celebrity gossip news.

    I may have missed some points, but those are the big ones. There really isn't anything illegal at all. At worst, there is a potential for civil suit, though that is minor at best.
  • Re:Glad to see.. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03, 2009 @01:00AM (#27441443)

    in Europe, where the government treats privacy

    Europe's not a single country with a single government, you do know that, right?

  • Re:Yes, actually. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03, 2009 @01:41AM (#27441609)

    However, you are three times more likely to be killed in the US than the UK according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate, and the UK has more homicide than most of (gun controlled) Europe.

  • Re:Alternatives (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03, 2009 @02:39AM (#27441917)

    Organize a huge mob of people to visit the village "because it wasn't on the map, and wanted to know what it was like"

    The mapping party has already been organised [openstreetmap.org]. (assuming it's the Milton Keynes one - there are two Broughtons in Buckinghamshire [wikipedia.org]) Bring a camera if you want!

  • No, actually. (Score:4, Informative)

    by canthusus (463707) on Friday April 03, 2009 @02:44AM (#27441939)

    I invite you to poke around the official numbers for both the US and the UK and make a counter argument.

    Those statistics are measuring quite different things, and cannot be meaningfully compared.

    The US figures are offences recorded by the police.

    The UK figures you give are from the British Crime Survey - a survey of people, who are asked if they have been victims of crime. Such surveys always give much higher figures, for a variety of reasons.

    In many ways a crime survey gives more useful numbers, as it measures victims rather than crimes, and isn't subject to recording differences. But the two really cannot be compared.

  • "Dumb yank" time? (Score:3, Informative)

    by fantomas (94850) on Friday April 03, 2009 @03:20AM (#27442097)

    "From what I understand, U.S. law allows photography on public property, i.e. streets. If you have a problem with that, you shouldn't be complaining to Google, you need to take it up with city/state legislators."

    RTFA? - the article is about Broughton, Buckinghamshire, in the *UK*. Much as our glorious leaders fawn and worship the grand USA, they've not managed to get us to be the 51st State yet... believe it or not we have this quaint olde thing called our own laws, US laws don't apply here*. English law is generally what is supposed to be in effect in Buckinghamshire (cue comedy responses ;-) ) - though probably you're allowed to take photos on public land most of the time, unless aforementioned householders are rich in which case you get chased orf their land (peasant).

    *Unless its "the war on terror" in which case US law applies, you guys get to torture people here, boil them down for their fat (or whatever "rendition" means, I was never sure about that one), etc, on the grounds that your laws trump ours because you're American.

  • Re:Yes, actually. (Score:3, Informative)

    by abigsmurf (919188) on Friday April 03, 2009 @04:10AM (#27442321)

    You are not comparing like for like statistics. You're comparing risk of crime to reported. A crime can affect more than one person which makes the risk higher.

    The violent crime rate in the UK is between 60% to 100% higher than the US depending on the year and the measure. However the murder rate in the US 300% that of the UK and women are twice more likely to be raped in the US than UK.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime [nationmaster.com]

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda