Google Street View of Thornbury

I'm sorry if there was any confusion, but I actually agree with you - I only think that we could do a better job of informing people about the kind of information that is being made available (hence my suggestion that Google contacts people in the areas they're mapping). You're also right to say that information is empowering, because without it a website like this would not have much scope for discussing local concerns.

“The person in question may well be unaware of their property even being shown on the internet (and there are a number of people who would be ignorant of this fact).”

In a world where there is so much more information available, than ever before, ignorance is not an acceptable plea any more. Information empowers the individual, ignorance is for the foolish and apathetic.

"there is a clear difference between people objecting to being photographed/filmed by trusted institutions and private individuals"

The differences are:-
PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE
- people are less likely to know they are being filmed (lack of knowledge, design of camera, location of camera)
- people have no control over when/where they are bring filmed
- it is impossible to avoid being filmed
- the operation of the CCTV control room is subject to stringent secrecy requirements [here is Bristol City Council’s policy regarding media access: tinyurl.com/y8mj9mq]
- what becomes of the footage is not known for sure
- the footage will only be deleted as part of the routine (after 30 days, assuming it is not needed for police/security matters), and assuming that the policy is adhered to
- finding out if there is footage and obtaining a copy is a complex, relatively unpublicised and costly process
[here is Bristol City Council’s access procedure:  tinyurl.com/ydrbgjk]

INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPHY/VIDEOGRAPHY
- people are more likely to observe an individual with camera/camcorder
- people can ask the individual to refrain from snapping/filming
- people can take some evasive action to stay out of shot
- most individuals do not shroud their actions in secrecy
- there is some probability that the results will end up on a well known internet site (e.g. Flickr/YouTube)
- getting the photo/video removed or masked might be possible (with the agreement of the individual)
- getting a copy might be possible (with the agreement of the individual), and for minimal cost and fuss

Bristol City Council and South Gloucestershire Council have a partnership arrangement for CCTV monitoring at the control room and liaison with the police. I have linked to some of the CCTV information that is available on the city council’s website. See what you get when you search for CCTV information at the SouthGlos website!

Personally I do not consider the council and police to be “trusted institutions”, and I would place more trust in the individual amateur photographer/videographer. After all it is the ability of individuals, alone or as a collective, to challenge the misinformation that is fed to us through the usual channels. I thought that was the main benefit of this website – that it gives local people the chance to express personal views in a way that is not available in any of the other established Thornbury media. Anyway, it’s just my opinion.

***************************

Just as a footnote, I am using Google’s photos of Thornbury to challenge some misinformation emanating from South Gloucestershire Council. Without the Google imagery I would never have known the extent to which pertinent information had been withheld. Thanks Google!

Personally I have no problem with my house being on the internet, but to say that people can simply ask Google to take the image down seems to miss the point. The person in question may well be unaware of their property even being shown on the internet (and there are a number of people who would be ignorant of this fact). The argument about surveillance doesn't hold water either, as there is a clear difference between people objecting to being photographed/filmed by trusted institutions and private individuals.

That being said, I agree that the public has a right to know when and where they are being filmed, and that in principle the freedom of information is a good thing. So, the best course of action is to advertise the availability of this information to prevent people from claiming ignorance about how exposed we are to each other. In practise this would mean opening up feeds from security cameras to the public (as you suggested) and Google posting letters to households in the areas they mapped - letting the owners know that their properties were now covered by the service.

Confusion
I think most people are sufficiently intelligent to know that a still image, on the internet, is only a snapshot of that moment in time. I can't imagine the absence of the two silver birches really confusing any visitor, when everything else is broadly the same.

When
If you contact Google, I feel sure that someone there would let you know the date(s) that Thornbury was filmed, especially as you represent an established local website. The Google maps website lists areas that are currently being filmed, so I don't see such a request being rejected.

Privacy
Individuals can ask Google to remove their house from the view, so that resolves the supposed invasion of privacy by Google. However, if it's in public view, and if there are no legal issues (national security, court ruling etc.), then you can film it. You have no control over who walks / drives past your house, and takes a photograph or video of it. There is a lot of nonsense about privacy, that is being passed around, in conversation, about what you can and can not film, and when you need permission. Little of that idle gossip is actually true.

For me, the ironic thing is that the people who object to an individual filming, make no fuss about the public surveilance that is happening, and we are being watched a lot. Whilst you were engaged in the official photo shoot of the anti-nuclear demonstrators, in the High Street, on 4th March, someone in St Georges Road, Bristol was watching you. In the photo which you uploaded to this site, you can see the camera (if you know where to look).

The whole High Street is covered by three cameras, and monitored in Bristol. In my opinion, it would be a far better arrangement, if we ordinary people were allowed to see, via the internet, what they are watching - a democratisation of public surveillance, if you like. Then (bringing the discussion back to your original point) visitors could actually see the centre of town, as it really is, because they would be viewing it in real time. This idea is not some radical proposal of mine, by the way, it was a recommendation of the Royal Academy of Engineering, three years ago.
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/mar/27/c...