[potatolicious]

> "The English, you see, haven't completely warmed to Google photographing their neighborhoods. They have, on occasion, chosen to block their streets"

Funny that the people would get up in arms over this but yet be pliant to the CCTVs that are so common over there.

[nvoorhies → potatolicious]

There's quite a bit of difference between representatives of your government doing something for the ostensible intention of making areas safer, and a corporation doing something similar with the intention of making a profit.

[detst → nvoorhies]

There's also a big difference between a static image and 24-hour live surveillance.

[sjf → detst]

Especially a static image will be publicly available for years (estimated, I don't know how often street view updates).

[c1sc0 → nvoorhies]

At least for companies you know their motives: profit. This makes them predictable in ways that political motives never will be. Once this kind of surveillance capacity is in place, there is no going back, even if the politicians (and the motives driving them) can and will change for the worse.

[guelo]

Why is it so hard for these news sources to add a link to the Google Street View location in question? Neither cnet nor The Sun has the link. Is it some link-juice thing?

Here's the link http://maps.google.com/maps?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&#...

[nopassrecover → guelo]

Privacy laws perhaps?

[ElbertF]

Is she OK?

[blasdel]

57 portraits of one man, presented with art-world framing instead of as local news filler: http://greg.org/archive/2010/04/10/walking_man_-_a_self-port...