Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Angry Villagers Run Google Out of Town

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the and-stay-out dept.

Google 1188

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.'"

cancel ×

1188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Glad to see.. (0, Flamebait)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438153)

That the novelty of having your private shit paraded on Google is wearing out. About friggin time.

Re:Glad to see.. (5, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438213)

Don't want to have people seeing your private shit? Don't keep it out in the open, in public view.

Don't want interlopers driving through your community? Make it gated and pay for your own maintenance instead of expecting the local government to take care of it for you.

Re:Glad to see.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438447)

this is england, i hear there is proposed legislation that would create a government position to wipe citizens asses, they say it's too dangerous to let people do it themselves as they may get paper cuts from the toilet paper. california legislators say this is landmark legislation and are considering introducing it here.

Re:Glad to see.. (5, Insightful)

robably (1044462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438523)

Privacy isn't all or nothing, it's a matter of respecting other people's wishes. There are more social rules in public places than there are in private - it's not a free-for-all where you should upset other people to the bleeding edge of what the law says is permissible. These people don't want their houses on Street View, whether you are fine with your house being on Street View is irrelevant.

And they aren't "idiots" - as somebody has tagged the story - they are just normal people. There's a staggering lack of respect for other people's wishes being shown in the comments here.

Re:Glad to see.. (5, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438589)

They are idiots, unless Britain has a law that things visible from the public streets aren't permissible to photograph.

Obviously, in the US this would be plainly moronic, since it is, indeed, the case, that in public there is no expectation of privacy.

Re:Glad to see.. (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438541)

Don't want to have people seeing your private shit? Don't keep it out in the open, in public view.

Or perhaps we could develop a social contract that balances things private and public so that I don't have to hide my stuff in a bunker in order to insure you don't feel you have a right to put pictures of it on the internet in a massive geo-tagged database you make available for your private commercial gain.

Don't want interlopers driving through your community?

I'm happy to allow tourists to drive through my community. I don't even mind if they take a few pictures, I don't even mind if they pop them up on their vacation blog.

I don't see why that should mean I should be happy to allow someone to systematically photograph every single part of my community visible from a public vantage point, and then upload it to the internet though.

Why can't we reach an understanding where its perfectly ok to take a few private photographs, but completely unacceptable to systematically photograph everyone/everthing and upload it into a for profit geo-tagged database?

Re:Glad to see.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438225)

yeah, because things visible from public roads are private.....give me a break like seeing street view pictures of houses is going to make you more likely to be burglarized? News Flash anything visible from a public road is not private.... sorry for being redundant but this is basic shit here people

Re:Glad to see.. (3, Insightful)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438231)

I didn't realize that public roads were your private shit.

Re:Glad to see.. (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438321)

I didn't realize that public roads were your private shit.

Were they really taking pictures of the public road?

Re:Glad to see.. (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438425)

They were only taking picture of light that was over the public road.

Cameras don't reach out and take things.

Re:Glad to see.. (4, Interesting)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438485)

IANAL, but anything plainly viewable from public property is not considered private.

On the other hand, if Google had developed a portable camera that can see through walls, blinds, hedges and clothes, and started driving that around public property, I think the locals might have a leg to stand on. For that matter, I'd like to see how close they'd get to Langley, or Fort Meade for example.

Interestingly, if everyone has access to said technology, it's no longer exotic or invasion of privacy. There's a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter, "The Light of Other Days," in which technology to remotely view any location on earth becomes widespread, convenient, and eventually, integral to modern life. When anyone can watch you anywhere, no matter what you're doing, does privacy even make sense?

Food for thought, as well as a rebuttal to you begging the question (that it is illegal to take pictures from a public road of private property.)

Re:Glad to see.. (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438603)

IANAL, but anything plainly viewable from public property is not considered private.

Agreed. However there should be a distinction between "seeing something from public property" and "systematically capturing a complete record of everything that can be seen from public property and uploading it into a for profit geo tagged database".

Its the same polite distinction we use with the 'have a penny / take a penny jar'. Its perfectly socially acceptable to grab a penny or two to round out the change in a purchase from this spare change. Its completely socially unacceptable to systematically go to each establishment and take all their 'spare change' once a week.

Re:Glad to see.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438289)

Another big question is why people still consider pictures taken from public roads an invasion of privacy. If you don't want people to do what they want with light rays being reflected from your property then erect a fence. All this will do is encourage these companies to provide worse products more secretly.

Re:Glad to see.. (-1, Troll)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438363)

To anyone that agrees with this. Have you ever used streetview? If so you are a horrible fucking hypocrite and I hope you die (Sorry if that possibly sounded a little harsh). If you haven't for shame what kind of nerd are you, its cool and somewhat useful.

Re:Glad to see.. (5, Funny)

Oswald (235719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438445)

I hope you die (Sorry if that possibly sounded a little harsh).

Nah, it's totally cool. And an eternity in hell back atya, buddy.

BTW, did you know you can actually edit the shit you write before you post it, in case you go, say, completely over the top?

Re:Glad to see.. (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438451)

To anyone that agrees with this. Have you ever used streetview? If so you are a horrible fucking hypocrite and I hope you die (Sorry if that possibly sounded a little harsh). If you haven't for shame what kind of nerd are you, its cool and somewhat useful.

To burgle with!

I dont use it. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438599)

Have you ever used streetview?

Sorry, it uses Flash and JavaScript. I refuse to use those because they are insecure, closed source, and were never part of the W3C standard.

The web was never meant for this kind of thing and if Google wants me to use it, they should release the source code so I can inspect it first. Then if I determine it is secure, I can compile it an run it on my desktop. The browser is for delivering text containing useful information and text for locating porn. This "web application" delivers neither text nor porn.

somewhat useful

I can take pictures of the street with my camera, what is your point? Why do I need their DRM infested flash player to do something anybody can do already?

Re:Glad to see.. (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438461)

That the novelty of having your private shit paraded on Google is wearing out. About friggin time.

Are you talking about your mansion that was photographed from the street by their car, or just an old alt.drugs post from 1991 bearing your real name?

That would be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438171)

If burglars only picked houses they found on the internets...

Re:That would be nice (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438203)

"This is an affluent area. 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."

An affluent area hey? Thanks for the info.

-Burglars.

Re:That would be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438459)

Clearly they've never heard of the Streisand Effect.

Re:That would be nice (5, Funny)

mofag (709856) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438577)

The Streisand Effect should be banned!

Re:That would be nice (2, Funny)

dotgain (630123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438293)

When StreetView is outlawed, only outlaws will use StreetView

Surprising (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438173)

Given the shape of popular british paranoia these days, I would have expected the google car to be identified as an agent of the paedophiles and run out of town for that reason...

Re:Surprising (5, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438277)

Honestly, all they had to do to get him to leave was offer food.

Re:Surprising (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438415)

Well, you're expecting them to be consistent in their paranoia.

After all, their government has been spying on them considerably more than Google, and it's Google they run out of town?

Re:Surprising (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438553)

Why don't you have a seat over there, mate?

To the Google Security Team (5, Funny)

diablovision (83618) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438175)

I was driving close to the Googleplex the other day and spotted what I thought was one of those infernal google camera cars, so I drove up next to it and stared, holding a bizarre contorted face for as long as possible. Turns out it was just Google security. Sorry security man, I thought I could be famous....

Re:To the Google Security Team (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438255)

My kingdom for a mod point! Were i drinking pop surely it would have come out my nose.

I hate street view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438179)

It is a terribly invasive service. Let's hope Google gets the message before one of these mobs takes out their anger out on the driver.

cant wait (1)

madcat2c (1292296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438181)

Please post the google maps pictures of the crowd...I cant wait to see it!

Re:cant wait (1, Informative)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438357)

"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!"

Alternatives (5, Insightful)

Mendoksou (1480261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438183)

So instead they got media coverage about how they are affluent and easy targets for burglars?

Re:Alternatives (2)

prockcore (543967) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438199)

No kidding. Someone stop by that village and explain the Streisand Effect to those morons.

Re:Alternatives (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438291)

oh yeah, people are just packing the bags to fly, train or drive from hundreds or thousands of miles away to rob these people.

This guy is a twit.

Re:Alternatives (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438391)

It works both ways. What if the images being posted on google did encourage burglars? Where would they come from? If they came locally, then the wide announcement of their opulence and poor security could entice them just as much as having the images of their opulence and poor security on google.

Re:Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438421)

I have a flight in tomorrow, I'm going to get loaded.

Re:Alternatives (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438315)

Well, at least it shows determined villagers are out there patrolling and protecting their village.

Moral of the story?

Burglars should still target this area but bring some weapons and keep an eye for angry and alert villagers.

British Law? (1)

ddrueding80 (1091191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438187)

Not sure where British law stands on this topic? I know it is legal for me (in the USA) to set up my tripod on the street outside someones home in an affluent neighborhood and snap away, then post those pictures on the internet. I would think the CCTV-soaked Brits would be even more forgiving.

Re:British Law? (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438285)

The CCTV situation in Britain coupled with their reaction to Google Street View makes it obvious that the British trust corporations and their government more than their next door neighbor.

Hmmm (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438191)

You'd think the English would be used to having their pictures taken. I happens like 300 times a day in London.

What kind of cowards do they hire? (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438193)

I'd fire that driver for turning tail. Lock the windows and keep driving. They can blur the faces of the mob later.

As for calling the police, go right ahead, I'm sure Google is breaking no laws.

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438251)

really? Besides the liability you would incur by having a driver continue into an angry mob, why would you have them risk their lives?
AN angry mob can flip a car, break windows, flatten tires.

Escalation in this scenario is NOT the wise thing to do.

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (5, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438347)

I think the obvious solution here is to equip Google cars with sharks. I don't care how angry your mob is, lets see it mess with a shark.

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438393)

I wonder what the liability is on that. You could put cages with tigers in them, strap them to the front of the car. Slap warning labels all over it. It would be safe unless you were touching the front of the vehicle. So you could just push through crowds.

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (0, Redundant)

Kelson (129150) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438497)

I think the obvious solution here is to equip Google cars with sharks. I don't care how angry your mob is, lets see it mess with a shark.

Especially if those sharks have frickin' laser beams!

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (5, Funny)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438443)

Yeah but think of the publicity Google gets having street view with a mob in it. I'd check it out. If the group followed the van for a few hours it would be amazing. The whole village would look like it has thousands and thousands of people constantly screaming. And all the faces would be blurred adding to the scary feel. Village of the faceless screaming hicks? Maybe not the same ring as night of the living dead but still.

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (2, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438529)

"AN angry mob can flip a car, break windows, flatten tires."

And destroy the enemies' SCUD-storm. But watch out for those toxins!

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (5, Insightful)

qw0ntum (831414) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438271)

Or they can just come back in a couple days and do it again, hassle avoided.

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438353)

I'd fire that driver for turning tail. Lock the windows and keep driving. They can blur the faces of the mob later.

I don't know if you're serious or not, but if it were me, I'm not risking my life and limb for minimum wage. Screw that.

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438403)

Hmmm... Maybe someone should put a 'Googlert' somewhere, so that residents know when Google's coming and put GIB boards all over the area, making anything taken useless.

Or just have people running alongside the car blocking its camera.

Breaking no laws? Maybe yes, maybe no. (5, Insightful)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438465)

It is not at all clear that Google is breaking no laws.

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.

The latest King Kong flick had a note in the credits that the had licensed the image of the Empire State Building.

Architects sometimes try (and succeed) in protecting their creations.

And Google is in it for the money - they use these photos to gain more click data and to sell more ads. Google is not some innocent taking a few snapshots.

So don't jump too quickly to the conclusion that Google isn't violating some of the property owners rights.

Re:Breaking no laws? Maybe yes, maybe no. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438593)

It has been extremely well established that if your copyrighted (sign, building, whatever) is viewable from a public place, then an image taken from that public place does not infringe. Period.

If the hollywood sign people really are doing that then they would get their asses handed to them if it went to court.

The King Kong movie is probably more questionable, since I'm guessing at some point a computer model was made of the building.

Re:What kind of cowards do they hire? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438483)

The driver must've been French to turn tail so quickly. However, if he was eating cake while driving, that could explain the mob reaction.

Google Maps (0, Troll)

nycheetah (172069) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438197)

I don't want my house and car on the internet for the same reasons this town has said. Want to case out a street and see the best way to rob, car jack, or even see my neighbors and family members for all to see so easily. What happened to privacy? If I want to be famous i'll be on a reality tv show.

Re:Google Maps (5, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438257)

That's nothing just wait until I finish my iBurgle application for the iPhone which automatically scans google's database and directs you the nearest rich persons house!

Re:Google Maps (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438305)

What you want? Is that how you measure the regulation of public space? Ya know, there's people in this world who don't want womens' faces to be visible in public. Should we accommodate their wants too? The thing about public spaces is that they are public. This means that everyone is allowed to go there and exercise freedom. Freedoms like taking pictures, and putting them on the Internet, if that's what they want to do.

Re:Google Maps (4, Interesting)

GospelHead821 (466923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438473)

One could look at this situation and say, "If you don't want Google taking pictures of your house, build a ten-foot wall in your front yard." Do we really want to resort to that, though? Technically, yes, Google is legally within its rights to take photographs of people's houses from the street. In a more civil world, though, if somebody is taking pictures of your house, you walk down to the road, ask them to stop, and they do. Google is exercising its legal rights but doing so in a way that many people feel erodes their dignity.

Most people don't want a wall in their front yard because they want to be open and welcoming to their neighbors, but not necessarily to strangers with cameras. Do we really want to foster a scenario in which people have to close themselves off to everybody in order to protect themselves from strangers with cameras? What Google is doing isn't wrong, but it isn't nice either. There's no law against being not nice, but I certainly don't think it properly coincides with Google's vow not to be evil.

Re:Google Maps (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438617)

How so? In a civilized world people don't ask other people in public to stop doing things they don't like.. they tolerate other people. If someone asked me to stop doing something I liked in public, I'd kindly point out to them that I am breaking no law. "It's a free country."

Re:Google Maps (1)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438367)

If I want to be famous i'll be on a reality tv show.

Yes, if you show up on google street view, that's an instant leap to fame and stardom! Seriously, get over yourself. Nobody cares about your house or seeing your family walking around on the street if the google cameras snap a picture as they happen to drive by. Nobody is plugging in the coordinates of your house so they could see what it looks like. You have no privacy out in public. You could end up being photographed by a tourist or a CCTV camera or a red light camera and they don't need to get your permission to do it. What happened to privacy? Nothing, it's in the same place it's always been... in the privacy of your own home. Once google starts taking photos of the layout of your house, then there's something to worry about.

And what about those pesky burglars? They're still there with or without google maps. There's nothing stopping them from planning escape routes the old fashioned way - by staking out the properties of those they plan to rob by driving down the street in their car or walking by. Google street view has not made a burglar out of anyone who wasn't one before, and it's really not making it that much easier for anybody to commit burglaries.

Re:Google Maps (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438399)

I assume, then, that you don't allow newspapers to be delivered to your house either. That paper sitting in your driveway is a sure sign that you're not home, and if you tell the delivery person to halt delivery while you're on vacation, they can make a lot more money on the side by passing that info on to thieves.

Plus, if you want to case out a street and see the best way to rob, car jack, or even see my neighbors and family members, you can drive legally anywhere the google street view car can, and take your own much more detailed and up to date pictures.

Re:Google Maps (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438417)

You have no privacy in public. The street in front of your house is *not* your private little playground, it is public property.

Re:Google Maps (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438493)

DO you just lack any notion of raelity or practicality?

A car jacking? you do know it's photograph, right? It can't track cars, family members, or anything.

Any criminals are likely to be from your area, and won't drive very far.
Add to that when you case a place you are looking for ways in, ways out, and limited detection at that time. A photograph doesn't do any home burglar anything better then being there.

I don't know if you are ignorant, or just have an ego the size of the moon.

Privacy is, and always has been, what happens behind closed areas not in the open.

Re:Google Maps (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438595)

What happened to privacy?

      You live on a planet with close to 7 billion other human beings. Your privacy died as soon as there were two of us. If you don't like it, feel free to build a 16 foot wall around the outside of your property but remember - we'll still be able to see you from a satellite!

      Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. There are many more people who use/will use Street View to check out neighborhoods for OTHER purposes like - nostalgia, see where a friend lives, look at a neighborhood before buying a house, etc. After all, there is absolutely nothing stopping a person with criminal intent from walking down your street WITH A CAMERA (dramatic music).

Speaking as a burglar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438201)

I've been looking for a neighborhood full of snobbish, whiny Brits to rob. Now I know where to go: the part of Broughton that's not on Google "street view"...

!streisandeffect (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438211)

This isn't the Streisand Effect, you troglodytes. Learn what that is before you go shrieking your confessions to being magnificently retarded.

Ah, Little Britain... (3, Funny)

Archimedean (923556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438217)

This is a local street for local people!

hey, moron (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438229)

the burglars already know where you live.

Think this through a bit more next time. (5, Insightful)

NetRanger (5584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438239)

Rule #1 is:
Security through obscurity isn't.

Rule #2 is: Making a huge stink about your private neighborhood against a well-liked company like Google will probably mean you're going to get a lot more attention than if you just let well enough alone.

You left out a rule (0, Redundant)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438375)

Rule #3: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

How that fits in with the theme of this story and the discussion soon to follow, I'll leave to the dear reader.

Red Sky At Night... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438259)

Get Orf Moy Laaaand!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Palmer [wikipedia.org]

An investigation is called for (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438275)

Clearly these people are hiding something. After all, why else would they be afraid? If they're not hiding something, there's no reason to be worried about being watched, is there? I suspect they're harboring a pedo... If you don't support the investigation, you support children being raped.

Sarcasm, I'm constantly shocked by how utterly cavalier young people are with their information online.

normal reaction (2, Insightful)

Beer is good (1415089) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438287)

So a car drives through once and takes still photos, gets chased out of town. But the Gov. puts up video cameras that shoot continuously, its ok? Granted there are loads of protests against the surveillance-state, but part of me feels that this story might be a bit of propaganda to divert attention from the real problem. Now let me put on my tin-foil hat...

Re:normal reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438349)

There usually aren't any government CCTV cameras in typical residential streets. City centres, maybe. We aren't quite as blanketed with CCTV in Britain as the average Slashdotter seems to think.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438335)

Your country connects every camera in every room of every store of your capitol to a big brother machine and you form an angry mob when google takes a picture of your yard?

Airstrip One (5, Insightful)

memorycardfull (1187485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438337)

Folks across the pond seem to trust only the state with cameras these days.

Nice with the gun control (1, Troll)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438339)

3 burglaries in 6 weeks. Awesome. Gun control stops crime.

Re:Nice with the gun control (0)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438407)

That was in the whole town, not just his house. I'd bet that there's no US town that such a low burglary rate even though you guys have guns. I'd also bet that their gun crime rate is A LOT lower than any US town.

Re:Nice with the gun control (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438499)

Low gun crime rate != low violent crime rate. Personally, I'd rather be shot to death than stabbed to death.

Re:Nice with the gun control (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438545)

How much do you want to lose?

why do you break out gun crime rate?
If you lok at the overall crime rate, it's really isn't that different from the US crime rate. Sometuime higher, sometimes a little lower.

I wish we could track crimes prevented or thwarted due to guns. THAT is the numbers we need to determine a reasonable outcome from gun bans.

I specify Gun bans. I have no problem with someone needing to be licensed to use a gun. Which is a form of Gun 'Control'.

Re:Nice with the gun control (1)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438587)

I'd bet that there's no US town that such a low burglary rate even though you guys have guns.

are you serious? Let me play that back to make sure I got it:
You are willing to bet, that there is no town in the US that has fewer than 2 burglaries a month?
I kind of hope this was a kneejerk reaction.

Re:Nice with the gun control (1)

Oswald (235719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438609)

So, just how big is this town anyway? And (because Google Maps has no clue) where is it?

If we're gonna boast, might as well boast about specifics.

Re:Nice with the gun control (3, Interesting)

Hottie Parms (1364385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438457)

Ah yes, a story about Google Street view and an article with no mention of guns gets turned into an anti-socialist, pro-gun debate.

Kuddos to your crafty (yet really quite subtle) way of getting your point across while staying on topic.

Re:Nice with the gun control (2, Funny)

Hottie Parms (1364385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438507)

Also note my crafty and subtle way of injecting a socialist point into my comment when the parent actually didn't mention the word "socialism".

Crafty indeed. Socialism + me 4evR!

Re:Nice with the gun control (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438475)

I'd rather have 3 burglaries than 3 murders.

Securtiy regained only by obscurity? (0, Troll)

Eric Elliott (736554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438351)

British socialist idiots made self defense illegal. These village idiots already have a burglary & robbery problem, so they imagine safety by not having pictures. Same flavor of idiot as the California politician that wants CA schools blurred in Google to prevent terrorist attacks. Makes me wonder if he has a speech about how terrorism started after AlGore invented the Internet.

In other news (2, Funny)

hampton (209113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438359)

In other news, Chrysler calls Google and offers them a great deal on some less recognizable cars.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438487)

In other news, can we have a permanent moratorium on the 'in other news' joke format?

To the Barricades ! (-1, Troll)

bug1 (96678) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438361)

Man the Barricades, the technology is trying to get in...

Whats the name of the religious nut^W people, where they hide on their farm from technology are use carts etc ? (god^Wdamnit i was going to try make a joke about them that also insulted religion)

Angry Mob Wins? (5, Informative)

The Raven (30575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438427)

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?

Arrrgh, they're stealing our souls! (1)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438449)

Lucky they didn't pull the poor bloke out of the car and burn him as a witch. Ignorant peasants.

LOL, talk about unintended consequences (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438467)

If they intended their little affluent, apparently easy to burglarize, neighborhood to remain secret then that's one big FAIL for them.

Nothing against the law here. (1)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438509)

Google did nothing wrong. However I am smiling for some reason. Something about even a miss directed desire for privacy tells me perhaps we as a race will still be okay in the future.

George Orwell RIP.

Inside Buildings (1)

Edoko (267461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438511)

The same technology can be used to go inside of buildings, such as shopping malls, government offices such as the Driver's License Bureau, courtrooms, or even in public bathrooms, subways, or one's private homes (such as for selling real estate), or on boats, inside museums, and so on. Possibly with similar micro camera, one could go inside a drainage pipe.

The people attacking the Google car probably could be charged with assault under the Common Law.

damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438531)

hicks

Some way to take a stand (4, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438555)

They took a stand and 'Called the police.'

That's hardly a 'stand.'

'Taking a stand' would be tarring and feathering their local district attorney equivalent and their MP's until their right to
shoot burglars dead is once again respected by English law.

Burglaries will be sorted out after a few burglars end up dead for their efforts.

Take a stand and kill a crook. Take a stand and slap around your local DA to de facto respect the notion that a man's home is his castle. Take a stand and slap around your politicians until they recognize what nature teaches: That every living thing has a right to defend themselves, their friends, their family, and their home.

Being a crook isn't a legitimate career choice. It should carry a great deal more risk than it currently does in jolly ol' Britain.

A little Young Frankenstein anyone? (1)

richardkelleher (1184251) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438557)

I really hope there were pitchforks and torches involved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah sure. (1)

gijoel (628142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27438573)

They say they don't want to be targeted by burglars. But I've seen plenty of movies about small English villiages. [wikipedia.org] I've seen the alarming [wikipedia.org] homicide [imdb.com] statistics.

Clearly these people have something hide. If they didn't they wouldn't have been so concerned about the Google camera.

I demand that the home office immeadiately send the Army in to round up the lot of these devil worshiping, pedophile, terrorists.

So, rich people who live on public roads... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438583)

So, rich people who live on public roads, have more privacy rights than others? And apparently, the homes aren't yet on Google maps, however they were robbed anyway, indicating that thieves ALREADY know about that neighborhood. Doesn't make sense to me.

cf. Monty Python's Encyclopedia Salesman sketch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27438601)


(voice behind closed door) "Who is it"?

(friendly well-dressed man) "Burglar, ma'am."

(homeowner) "Are you sure you're not a map scout for Google?"

(man) "No ma'am, I'm definitely a burglar."

(homeowner) "You're not planning to take pictures of our streets and houses and yards, are you?"

(man) "No ma'am. I just want to ransack your house and make off with some cash, fine china and jewelry."

(homeowner) "But you don't work for Google?"

(homeowner) "Well... all right. I'll unlock the gate."

(man sets up tripod in yard) "You know ma'am, I appreciate this project might be a temporary nuisance, but Google really is doing this as a free public service that will bring your neighborhood into the 21st century...."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>