TechSpot

Google CEO Eric Schmidt: don’t like Street View? then move!

By Emil
Oct 26, 2010
Post New Reply
  1. I personally don't see the problem here (other than how Eric handled the situation). There's no difference between street view and someone driving around the neighborhood. Got caught being out in your robe? So what! The pictures so pixelated that nobody will recognize when they pass you on the street anyway.

    Street view has saved me a few times. Google maps had the road name wrong, but thanks to street view, I knew it was the right road to go down. And my wife works in delivery, so street view allows her to see the actual layout of the streets she's going to, which makes her job a whole lot easier.

    I think it's all just a mental thing. People don't like the idea of their house being posted on the web. But like I said, it's no different than someone looking up you address and typing it into google or map quest and driving to your house and through your neighborhood.
     
  2. Regenweald

    Regenweald TS Rookie Posts: 143

    The man is an *****.
     
  3. lawfer

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,272   +91

    And the moral of this story is:

    Eric Schmidt and Sean Parker are two douchebags.
     
  4. mtrenal

    mtrenal TS Rookie Posts: 45

    I agree that street view is in itself certainly not illegal- it would be very difficult for anyone to make a solid lawsuit against Google for this. What Schmidt said, on the other hand, was just an entirely irrational move. Mocking angry people never calms them down or makes any issues blow over smoothly.

    I also agree that if people have an issue with something that is on street view, they should contact Google quietly and have it removed. If Google then refuses to remove it, then maybe somebody's got grounds for complaint.

    Sometimes it seems as though a lot of people don't actually have any problem with whatever right of their's has been violated in some way- they just want to be able to sue a multi-billion dollar company and earn a couple bucks.

    At any rate, what Schmidt said was ridiculous on any level. He needs to watch his mouth before he really screws something up and catches more serious flak than just criticism. Even Google is not all-powerful, and making angry people angrier just pushes them towards action- although a Google-boycott seems unlikely to work, admittedly.
     
  5. poertner_1274

    poertner_1274 secroF laicepS topShceT Posts: 4,745

    Sounds a bit like an outdated, not in touch with the public, comment. Being the CEO of a company gives you the right to speak your mind, but there has to come a point in time when it's best to shut your pie hole.
     
  6. xanthic42

    xanthic42 TS Rookie

    While the comment of "just move" was a bit flippant, and as most CEO interviews I have seen he seems a bit out of touch with peoples actual concerns. Streetview as stated doesn't give you any visual information that you can't get just by driving somewhere yourself. It does a reasonable job of blurring faces, license plates and middle fingers. And as he stated, none of their available information is real time, although I am curious how often map data is actually updated.
     
  7. Faller

    Faller TS Rookie

    I don't understand why this is a privacy concern. It's a view from the street on the internet. Yes if you are caught on street view doing something (the cars are mildly conspicuous) that you don't wish to show then complain. I don't know if they can redo a sweep of the house if you ask them to, but that's what I'd try. That being said, there's no reason for him to stoke the flame.
     
  8. Timonius

    Timonius TS Booster Posts: 584   +32

    One could always move out of major population centers. Google Street View may not be in some rural areas. It all depends on how obsessed one is with their privacy.
     
  9. Privacy is tricky. and the writer is an ***** w/his last comment. Google does awesome ****en things to shake things up. They just sit there and say..how can disturb XXX,and you know what..its for the better, most obvious ANDROID
     
  10. fadownjoo

    fadownjoo TS Rookie Posts: 64

    Its just a joke, why does everyone need to jump on him? There is nothing wrong with streetview, it doesnt invade anyone privacy, especially since the pictures are very old.
     
  11. Archean

    Archean TechSpot Paladin Posts: 6,053   +76

    Absolutely correct, no one I know have bothered to buy a blue ray device; so that says alot about transitional side of this tech. Now to street view, I have nothing more to say then -> Eric/Google = Arrogance Personified
     
     
  12. Fragrant Coit

    Fragrant Coit TS Maniac Posts: 579

    Schmidt is talking schmidt...............
     
  13. XnaX

    XnaX TS Rookie Posts: 39

    Wasn't it Lady Gaga who said "All PR is good PR"? Maybe Eric is her father and taught her that phrase? xD
     
  14. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 10,734   +892

    The concept of piracy seems so accepted to many of you, with its blatant disregard to the intellectual property rights of others, seems to have brought on a complete disregard for your own physical property rights, with respect to being photographed.

    Anytime an individual is photographed, in order for that image to be used in a commercial manner, a "model release" must be obtained. You must be of the age of consent to sign this document, and receive monetary compensation for the use of the image, or you have legal avenue to seek redress.

    This can extend to property as well, and a property "model" release must be obtained to the same end.

    Photographers have been stopped from making, (and selling), images of public buildings, such as stadiums, because they were not the "authorized" person to do so.

    So, while this concept might be unenforceable, with a factory stock "X-Box", (since they presumably, "all look alike"), it could be enforceable with an X-Box that has been customized with a fantasy war scene painted on it. The same is true of a house, since each of them is, "customized", to a varying degree.

    Since Google is rather obviously a commercial venture, they should be held to commercial standards, and be prepared to obtain signed property releases for those buildings photographed, in addition to providing compensation to the signatories of these documents.

    In this situation, Google has everyone disadvantaged, since "reasonable compensation" in these instances, would probably be on the order of a dollar. That combined with the fact a class action lawsuit would have to be filed, and at the end of it, the affected individuals would get about twenty cents each, and the parasites (attorneys) would get about 30 cents from each individual settlement
     
  15. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 10,734   +892

    Don't you mean, "bull schmidt"...?

    Good one, BTW...!
     
  16. I have checked, no he doesnt!
     


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.