It seemed like old times again – the recession shoved off the front pages by a story about libertarians opposed to a blatant invasion of their privacy.
No, amazingly, it was not CCTV or databases this time.
Google’s Street View seems to have divided people pretty evenly into two camps.
There are those who object to their home being viewed online because of “privacy” or “fear of crime” issues, and those who can’t see what the fuss is all about.
To them, it’s no different to someone looking at your home as they walk past.
The objections are similar to those expressed against CCTV when it was first introduced. We even had these villagers stopping the Google camera car.
By its nature there is some “invasion of privacy” with CCTV, but this is far outweighed by its usefulness as a crime fighting tool.
Same thing with Street View. The “invasion of privacy” issue is outweighed by its social usefulness in many other ways. There’s also no denying it’s fun and I bet even those who object to it will use it at some time.
They’re probably the same people who are quite happy to have the entire contents of their easily-identifiable homes plastered all over some estate agent’s window.
Over the fence views
Personally, I can’t see that Street View will be any more “helpful” to criminals than if they walked past your home. As the images were gathered some months ago and are now out of date, probably a lot less helpful.
It’s probably not even as helpful as the aerial views that have been on Google for years.
In any case, most domestic burglary is opportunist and those who fear that their possessions can be seen from the road should really have put up net curtains by now.
I do have, however, two reservations about Street View:
Firstly, the height of the camera gives viewers the kind of view they generally could not get unless they were on a bus or in the cab of a truck.
People who erected fences to the maximum height to get a bit of privacy in street-facing gardens might, understandably, be miffed – especially if they weren’t on a bus route.
Secondly, I see that there could be a potential danger at some future point with camera definition.
Forget the Hollywood stereotype – CCTV geek zooms in and manipulates grainy image to pick out identifying pimple under suspect’s left nostril.
At the moment with Street View, when you zoom in all you get is a more pixelated image.
But as high-def becomes much more commonplace and expected in every application, what happens a few years down the line when Google updates the images?
There may be some legitimate concerns if users could zoom in on details that could only be picked up by a passer-by using binoculars.
Still, easy for me to talk, my home is not yet on there.
I’d better put trellis on the fence and get those curtains up quick.
Distracted district
Police in Greater Manchester are doing a bit of a googly themselves with some very odd looking adapted Smart cars out to catch “distracted” drivers, according to this report. The Metal Mickeys mounted up there, no doubt, do a great job as usual, but I wouldn’t be surprised if these police cars themselves cause something of a distraction to motorists. In light of the anti-Street View protest, they might put a notice up under the police badge along the lines of “Nothing to do with Google”.
Justice just a joke
I’d lay bets that Street View will have much less effect on burglary than the plain fact that there is now hardly any deterrent against it.
One in every four burglars caught by police is escaping with a “slap on the wrist“, according to Tory Justice spokesman Dominic Grieve.
He made the comments while criticising the Home Office’s much-derided initiative to get people down to B&Q to buy window locks.
Grieve says derisory sentences for burglars send out the message that “the onus is on the householder to protect their home but not on the criminal justice system to enforce the law”.
The criminal justice system enforce the law? That’s a laugh.
You wouldn’t be able to fill the top deck of a bus with the number of people who still feel that the punishment fits the crime in modern Britain.
Is it any wonder small time burglars are quietly and leniently eased through the courts when even high profile cases result in what many people would see as insane sentencing by our judiciary?
This one is momentously lenient and left many people feeling that there is, indeed, no real justice in our society anymore.
Rustlers’ brand
We’re getting used to seeing tagging on expensive joints of meat.
But maybe farmers should be going one step back in the food chain and looking at security to protect the animals while they’re still roaming around the field.
The rising cost of meat has led to a big increase in livestock rustling.
Whereas it used to be metal theft, stolen to order, criminal gangs are now turning their attention to targeting meat on the hoof.
So maybe the ‘report’ on our website on April 1st about cameras on cows was not quite as far fetched as it sounded. Other valuables, worth a lot less, routinely get better protection.
Rural security has always been a difficult field – if you’ll pardon the pun – but both tagging/tracking devices and covert and overt CCTV is used to protect farmyard machinery, so why shouldn’t it be used to help protect the livestock?
Beware – clever link ahead
On the subject of cattle – reports say small businesses nationally are being “bullish” about the recession, and three quarters think they will survive it.
The biggest way to fight back is to find cheaper suppliers, then review utility suppliers and cut back on energy usage. I suppose these last two would feature highly as the survey was carried out on behalf of a company that helps users do the switch. Interesting figures nevertheless.
Small installation businesses, like all others, are still finding it hard to get credit from the banks. According to this report it has made them ripe for acquisition.
Not much mileage in this
Did you jet off for Easter (probably not, given the circumstances) or did you travel the “average of 27 miles” over the holiday?
Thanks to Tesco Breakdown cover for bringing us the valuable information that, err, a lot of people stayed at home and some travelled more than 100 miles – hence the conclusion that Joe Average drove 27 miles.
It just goes to prove how useless some “research” is.
Still I’d rather know that before a holiday than the cheery bit of information I received in a press release from the “Aerotoxic Association” which read:
“As thousands of people prepare to jet off for their Easter break, often with their children (do they usually leave them at home then?) most will be unaware that they are being exposed to neuro-toxic chemicals from engine oil during flights”.
Yes, thanks for that. Just what we need in a recession – another reason not to spend money.
Read more about this if you haven’t yet booked a flight.
Still, it might keep some of us here clocking up those mythical 27 miles.