| Author | Message | ||
     Lauren Weinstein (Lauren) Moderator Username: Lauren Post Number: 27 Registered: 06-2003 |
Greetings. While watching a program over on History International earlier today, I was reminded that a form of Google Maps "Street View" was available in ... 1907 -- a full century ago! Well, something that makes me think of the similarities anyway. Back when the automobile was a relatively new consumer product, and conventional road maps were yet to be developed, Rand McNally published what were called Photo-Auto Maps, showing photos of streets and landmarks, with arrows pointing you to the correct path leading toward your destination. Here is an example! Just the tiniest bit eerie, eh? For the record, some of my more detailed thoughts regarding Street View are here. --Lauren-- | ||
| Dave W Mitchell (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered Guest |
Please note that street-view photography of structures is used in the real estate industry to maintain a valuation index of comparable properties in the real estate industry, as well for assessment purposes. This dates back for many decades.... | ||
| Lauren Weinstein (Lauren) Moderator Username: Lauren Post Number: 33 Registered: 06-2003 |
This is very true. It is not uncommon to see strangers snapping photos of your house here in Los Angeles, and usually it's the real estate folks. Of course, given that this is L.A., sometimes it actually turns out to be a location scout, looking for potential TV/film shooting venues. I've had this happen. First I see the strange guy taking the photos, then I find a note in my mailbox asking me to call him about possibly setting up a shoot. In most places this would probably be a scam. Here it's usually on the level. A key difference from Street View (or its like), of course, is that these other photos have not traditionally been widely available to the public. Widespread accessibility of this data over the Net (a bit like concerns over Web access to public record data that in some cases can be privacy invasive, which I view as a much more serious dilemma) is a major factor that drives the controversies regarding this issue. Most people simply have not realized that (with limited exceptions) taking photos from your own property, or public property, and doing pretty much what you want with them is legal. There are good reasons for this historically and viewed from the context of today. I believe that the debate triggered by all this can be a healthy one, but I am concerned that knee-jerk reactions could result in draconian laws restricting public photography, that would be extremely unwise and pose a significant risk to both individual rights and public safety. --Lauren-- | ||
| Joseph Otto (Joe) Member Username: Joe Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2007 |
This discussion takes us directly to the heart of defining 1) the ownership of information and 2) what exactly our rights should be concerning privacy. Assuming that information can be "owned" at all, there is probably a balance to be struck here. But the process of discovering exactly what that balance is will undoubtedly be painful. As a property owner, it's entirely reasonable to think that I should have something to say regarding who can look at my property and in how much detail. However, the big secret is that we have no ownership of property in the US. We gave up property ownership decades ago in the name of the "public good". And along those lines, the public now has a right to see the property as well. The old adage "Your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins" simply doesn't apply well in this case because the harm isn't necessarily done by the picture-taker or even when the picture is taken. The harm may occur when that information (the picture) is used by someone else at some other time for an entirely different purpose than was the intention of the picture-taker. Or the harm may never occur. There's a *lot* of public record information freely available to anyone who wants it that'll never cause anyone harm. Some people are up in arms about the evils of digital rights management. This is a prime example of the need for it. On the whole, most people tend to hide behind words that are comfortable but only approximately mean what they're trying to say. Unfortunately this goes on until what's being repeated finally becomes accepted as truth - regardless of whether it actually *is* true. This is the case with digital rights management. It is not evil. In fact it is desperately needed. Although there's nothing inherently wrong with it, there's everything wrong with who is actually pushing for it and what they want to do with it. Sane, rational thought would go a long way toward solving these problems. It's too bad that those qualities are in such short supply. | ||
| Lauren Weinstein (Lauren) Moderator Username: Lauren Post Number: 34 Registered: 06-2003 |
While I'd very much prefer not to see this discussion drift too far into a debate about DRM -- which is an important topic but I suspect a stretch for this thread -- I believe that the same fundamental problems with DRM that have embroiled the music and motion picture industries, et al., would apply in virtually any other context as well. Fundamentally, regardless of whether one is philosophically in favor of or opposed to Digital Rights Management on a conceptual basis, I am not convinced that it is workable in the long run from a purely realistic standpoint. My comments from last January in Memo From the Future: Why DRM is Doomed, while primarily written concerning the entertainment industry, still apply broadly across the universe of other DRM facets. --Lauren-- |
