Well for those on both sides of the big pond here is an article describing the diferences in how privacy is viewed. They start out talking about the Italy/Google stuff but get into the overall.

American and European Ideas of Privacy Collide
“The framework in Europe is of privacy as a human-dignity right,” said Nicole Wong, a lawyer with the company. “As enforced in the U.S., it’s a consumer-protection right.”
.
.
Americans like privacy, too, but they think about it in a different way, as an aspect of liberty and a protection against government overreaching, particularly into the home. Continental privacy protections, by contrast, focus on protecting people from having their lives exposed to public view, especially in the mass media.
[nytimes.com...]

The NY Times article is a really good article in relation to this thread. I actually was about to add it to this thread, but found ppc_newbie had beat me to it.

I don't get a lot of the complaints and noise around Street View: as long as the pictures are taken from public property and faces are blurred out (like they are) what could be the issue? Nothing stops a criminal from physically vising a place, so I don't see Street Views as being problematic in a security sense. Maybe I am missing something here.

A criminal doesn't get to walk around with a step ladder and a movie camera and take pics from nearly 8 feet up ( and thus see into private gardens etc ..and over the tops of cafe type curtains )..not without questions being asked pretty damn quick like "what the hell do you think you are doing looking into peoples gardens and taking photos" ..

He doesnt need to if G is doing it for him ..

A criminal doesn't get to walk around with a step ladder and a movie camera and take pics from nearly 8 feet up

How about a citizen of the united states? Is he allowed get a step ladder and take pics from 8 feet up?

Yes he does, as long as he isn't obstructing traffic, a sidewalk, and is not wearing a skirt with no underwear then it is fine. Why is it so hard to understand that they aren't doing anything bad as long as they follow the rules, which they seem to be trying to do.

Maybe I am missing something here.

You are, you are missing a hate-on for Google, only people who hate Google and think they are criminals have a problem with it.

A hate-on?

Google needs to stay out of communities. It's been mentioned that some don't care if a picture of their house was taken, but at least give a chance to make it picture worthy. Put car away, blah blah.

I wouldn't mind someone taking a picture of my house either. But if I notice it, I will meet and talk to the person before I let an image be made. You don't just go by with camera on pole snapping images.

Google is big brother with the NSA back door, and that is a problem. Everyone in this thread should realize that.

Google needs to stay out of communities.

Why?

but at least give a chance to make it picture worthy. Put car away

Again why? I know it would be nice but not required. If someone wants to steal your car they will, Google street view may give them the reason, walking by your house may give them the reason, but you shouldn't have to get rid of street view because people are bad, just like you don't get rid of the sidewalk because some people are bad.

I will meet and talk to the person before I let an image be made.

They don't need your permission.

You don't just go by with camera on pole snapping images.

Again... why?

Google is big brother with the NSA back door, and that is a problem.

Sorry I guess a hate-on for Google isn't the only requirement to not like street view, a good dose of paranoia seems to help too.

Demaestro..
A.Is he ( the US citizen )allowed to take pictures into your garden or your rooms that border the route from his step ladder ) without your permission given in advance ..
B.The US citizen or the US company when they are not in the USA should respect the laws of the country they are in ..and where I'm posting from and in most of the world outside the USA neither the citizen with his step ladder nor the camera car is allowed to take photos over the top of walls into private property ..
C. In most of the rest of the world ..they both need permission ..and common courtesy and politeness should take precedence over use of other peoples images ..even in the USA ..

The USA is not the world ..and we dont accept what you personally might be willing to ..nor can you accept it "for us" ..

plus ..This is WebmasterWorld ..this constant pushing of the US centric point of view on problems with google is wearing thin ..they are a worldwide company ( offices in many countries )..and should act in deference to other countries laws ( where US laws don't apply ) when they are in other countries .

and should act in deference to other countries laws ( where US laws don't apply ) when they are in other countries

I agree 100%, You should respect the laws of the place you are in which is why I said

that they aren't doing anything bad as long as they follow the rules

What is curious about the EU warning is that they aren't breaking rules, it is just the EU has an idea of how they want Google to behave when doing this. I am sure there is no law saying if you publish a picture of someone's home that you update it every 6 months, yet that is what they are asking of Google.

None of that makes them evil, or criminals, or a back door for the NSA.

They are breaking rules ..when they photograph over walls ( offering to remove what they photograph doesn't remove the offence ..nor the offense )..and technically in some countries when they photograph individuals even in public places without model release forms signed before they take the photos ( offering to blur after doesnt count ) they are also breaking laws ..

What the EU is doing is saying to them .."if you dont want us to insist that you restrict your company's actions to the absolute letter of the law ..then as long as you do certain things ..we'll be cooler with you than if you were an individual or a company other than google" ..

The EU is offering a way out of a blanket EU wide ban ..( because theoretically the EU law which would apply in all countries would be that of the most restrictive in relation to what google do ) ..The EU is trying to get Google to understand that they have to respect the EU citizens traditions and laws on privacy as they stand and also to voluntarily respect privacy in member countries which dont have specific legislation ..
or EU wide legislation will be enacted specifically to deal with G ..which will not be to G's taste or advantage ..

I read right here at ww that the NSA has a free and clear back door to google info. I would have known nothing about the subject if it weren't for webmasterworld.

I am photographer. And, I don't take pictures of private residences, people close up, or other peoples private goods or property without some sort of legit permission. I know I'm within my legal rights to do so if I don't ask. It's just courtious, kind and neighborly to ask.

There is always one person who will argue the letter of the law, without considering the circumstances of the action and think that if it's legal it must be ok. In this case it's not ok for everyone. Legal does not equal it's right or respectful.

You can take a picture of my house with that attitude, but if I catch you and all you can tell me how perfectly legal it is, without any other courtesy or respect for me or my personal property... Well, needless to say you'll not get your image that day.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it should be. Look at IP law. We're in a mess right now with IP and copyright problems. The law is the law, but it's currently leaving too many holes and all people aren't currently protected under it.

We don't understand the future consequences of the laws we have now. I'd rather be a forward thinker on issues of privacy and personal security, then just saying "it's legal so it must be good".

I am not saying if it is legal it is good but like anything you have to wiegh the good against the bad.

For me I see more benefit then harm, but that is just one guys opinion.

Knives have been used to kill and make great sushi, I would perfer to keep knives legal. I value life over sushi but we can't take away things because there is some potential for bad.

I am curious how you would stop someone from
getting their picture. It sounds threatening and I find that to be a scarier attitude then the one google has about street view. I haven't heard them make threats like that.

Depends where you are talking about ( again) here carrying a knife ( even concealed ) in a public with a blade length longer than 10 cms ( about 4 inches ) is illegal ..( No one is going to suddenly stop walking ..open a table up and set up a sushi stand ..so no reason to carry them ) ..But they aren't illegal if carried by the staff in restaurants ..nor if carried by hunters in the forest ( although technically the forest is a public place ..unless it's a private forest ) The hunter has a reason for carrying the knife ..so the law takes this into account ..The hunter is not allowed to carry the knife in the vicinity of a residential area ( no closer than 200 meters ) unless they are going to a hunting expedition ..or coming from hunting ..

See ..sensible laws ( pretty much the same applies to our carrying or possession of fireams laws ..no automatics ..anywhere except in hands of law officers or within gun club grounds or transport to and from with trigger locks on )..

I'd stop them ..because I'm bigger than the average 3 or 4 or maybe 5 if they are slim women ( yeah I need to loose/redistribute some weight .less keyboard ..more 10 mile hikes :))..:)..goog employees rolled into one ( even allowing for the average "merkins" being a little shall we say "heavy"..:) that and because I'd be within my rights "apprehending a trespasser" ..

Knives are certainly are certainly a good comparison.

I don't mean to sound threating. I could bore a would be photographer of my house to death with senseless drivel until he/she wanted to leave any never return.

My feeling on this falls around the idea of sanctity of the home. freely available information is one thing, but when the desire for sometimes trivial (I do understand the very good that can come from google sv as well, but for the most part trivial) information begins to override the confidence of individuals, the intent should be clearly defined or the law should be revisited as it pushes new limits.

Or something like that...