<![CDATA[A snooper snooped - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> So now that everyone knows where Larry lives, I guess this means Larry and Lucy won't be nude sunbathing in the backyard anymore!

Anonymous

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> I don't see that the resolution much matters - it's not a privacy issue regardless. If anyone knows the address they can come over and see the same info, only it will be in real time rather than a snapshot on some random day.

InferiorOlive

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> Google?
Go Ogle.

Goodbye, Commenters!

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> appetite:

You ask google for driving directions, and it shows you a street-level image of every intersection you need to turn at, or you get to see the entire path in your browser.

You ask it for the address of a restaurant, and you get a picture of the street it's on, and the facade.

Two ways, off the top of my head, that this will greatly increase the usefulness of google's location-based services.

Again, I don't see the privacy concerns here. If it was going anywhere but the public roads, maybe.

gleam

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> Anyone notice that this photo was taken from maybe 10 feet high? Allowing you to see over fences and into homes and yards.

Google would probably tell you "it needs to be that high to see over other cars", but this is not "walking by" perspective.

What do you think people would do if you walked around your 'hood with a camera on a 10 foot pole aimed into people's yards? Invasion of privacy?

My guess is the person wouldn't get very far...

telebyte

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> And remember that "privacy is dead" will ultimately prove to be a corollary to "snooping is dead". So all will be well in the world after all...

jmdecombe

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> He definitely made a nice purchase. I've been inside this house pre-Larry and it is possibly the nicest property in Old Palo Alto. It feels like a haven of peace hidden in the center of the best area of the best city on the Peninsula. What else can you ask for? OK, so what's next... the Silicon Valley equivalent of those Hollywood stars maps?

jmdecombe

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> Oh, certainly, one could obtain recon photos of better quality by tracking down Larry Page's house in Palo Alto, and doorstepping the Google founder. But Google Maps is easier.

Nick Denton

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> does anyone remember that this feature was already introduced Windows live? how is this all such a shocking thing now?

mattbrown

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> I'm just curious who has the free time to find all this crap. I mean, I saw several stories talking about this feature, but not once did I say 'hey, lets blow a few hours putting my nose to the screen and finding celebrities houses and see if I can maybe seem them in their front yard. Just lame.

@nidolke: lol, exactly.

quagmire0

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> So now, when you step out of any building, you have the chance for your picture to be put on one of the most trafficked sites on the web with no warning whatsoever, for millions of people to see. Maybe it's not an invasion of privacy, but it's something very disturbing. Maybe YOU don't care, but it still affects everyone in an arguably negative way. Can some of the Google apologists explain how the benefits outweigh the costs? This is a permanent lifestyle change.

appetite

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> You fail to note that this is less than a block from Steve Jobs' house, a fact that is easily verifiable by looking at your recent post about Jobs' Mercedes in his driveway.

Tunapuna

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> are you people color-blind. I only see black Benz not the silver one ???

alexz

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> so, wait a second, if you build a technology you shouldn't have it used against you?

Oh, Colossus, where are you when we need you to control us all?

sanjsrik

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> Camera-phone quality pictures? HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!

nidolke

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> actually, mopar_man, it's easy to read some of those license plates if you zoom in. The Mazda pickup is 7M51412 and the lexus suv is 5GUR517.

The mercedes is a bit tougher.. 5M??645.

That said, I don't think this is an invasion of privacy at all. Maybe if it was 20MP cameras, but not 3MP.

gleam

]]> <![CDATA[A snooper snooped]]> So tell me this: what are the plate numbers on the vehicles parked there? That's what I thought. This is actually WORSE than standing outside. If I were standing in the same spot in person, I could read those license plates. Most folks have slightly-better-than-webcam vision due to regular visits to the optometrist. I still fail to see how this thing invades privacy when the picture quality sucks. When the quality gets to the point of being able to see the numbers on the calender inside my house from the street, then I'll start to worry. For now, my tinfoil hat stays in the cupboard right beside my paranoia.

mopar_man

]]>