[chii]

> Google recorded half of the planet with cameras

not to be a google apologist, but they only ever record public areas. Do you hold tourists that take photos to the same standard?

> are not blurred in the internal data at Google.

whatever is in internal google is irrelevant, since the data is not exposed publicly. Do you expect that a tourist that took the same photo with a license plate to blur out their photo in their own private album? I would expect that the tourist that publishes the photo (say, on facebook) blur out the license plate, but not when it's in their own private album.

> sometimes the private address of the owner

how did google get the private address of the owner of a public business? I don't quite understand the claim to the wrong doing.

[NhanH]

A single person that collects data at the same scale at Google? I will absolutely hold him to the same standard.

I mean, that was a plot point in a Batman movie not too long ago. And even Batman doesn’t deserve that kind of power.

[hulitu]

> whatever is in internal google is irrelevant, since the data is not exposed publicly

The data may not be exposed publicly but can still be sold or used against you.

[JohnFen]

> they only ever record public areas. Do you hold tourists that take photos to the same standard?

If those tourists are creating a massive database of everybody, then yes.

The issue isn't really the recording itself. The issue is what is done with the data afterwards.

[belter]

>not to be a google apologist, but they only ever record public areas. Do you hold tourists that take photos to the same standard?

Tourist don't do the same thing. Why do you think there is almost no Google Street View in Germany?

> whatever is in internal google is irrelevant, since the data is not exposed publicly...

GDPR -> "What information must be given to individuals whose data is collected?"

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...

> how did google get the private address of the owner of a public business? I don't quite understand the claim to the wrong doing.

Google got it because some owners have their company registered to their own private address. It's the extra step of publicly exposing that info and pressuring you to take ownership of it otherwise it will be shown on Google Map an offer that currently is 98% of the market. Why do you think you have the option of blurring the view of your house in Google Maps?

[Rexxar]

> Do you hold tourists that take photos to the same standard?

Scale, intent and usage matters in law.

[LinuxBender]

they only ever record public areas

They tried to get around that with Pokemon Go with some success. I don't know if all that content they scraped is publicly available however.

[macrolime]

What is a public area? Anywhere that can be viewed from any spot accessible to the public? So the only non-public areas are rooms with no windows?

If I go to Google Street view I can see a lot of details from inside my house, same with the houses of my neighbors.

If you stop and stare inside someone's window in public, people will notice and wonder what the hell you're doing. Nothing's stopping anyone from staring through people's windows through Google Street view though.

[brokenmachine]

In most "free" countries, people are free to stand outside your house on the public street and look towards your house as much as they want. They can even take photos.

So you can wonder what the hell they're doing as much as you want, because what you're suggesting is perfectly legal.