submitted 2 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
❤️ 3
 

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 150 points 2 months ago (2 children)

"Google says the document is deleted after 60 days."

Lol. They absolutely keep all of the data.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 83 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    "Just give us your name, address, and more, and we'll stop violating your privacy (on the surface). Training AI? Well, obviously. Selling to data brokers? I mean, why wouldn't we? We'll delete the document after we've stored all the details in our database, of course."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Yeah, doesn't say anything about copies being destroyed.

    Now that I think about it, is that a threat? Is google going to come to my house and set all my documents on fire in 60 days?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 140 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    The two counter arguments to this are:

    1. You are giving more personal data to google to prove you live at that address.

    2. A blurred house on street view makes you stand out and can make burglars think you are some rich guy with valuable stuff in their house.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    Yeah this is exactly like the DNR (Do Not Track Request) built into browsers. It was off by default. Turning it on was only done by privacy focused individuals. But it made you significantly more trackable because almost nobody turns it on, your browser becomes a lot more unique.

    Thankfully browsers stopped supporting it. But this is the same thing. Very few people will use it, so that it'll make you stand out instead of helping you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I read somewhere once that some houses are blurred after grisly murders occur there, among other heinous crimes like arson and rapes. That's what I usually think of wwhen I see a blurred house. I can't say I've ever seen a mansion blurred either.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Google maps has a picture of my house from about 10 years before i moved in and it looks exactly like all the other houses around me...

    ...but i should give google personal information and utility bills to get it taken down?

    Nah.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 42 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    don't tell google where you live

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    If you use Maps, they already know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 111 points 2 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Google already knows. They just don't have a reason to check usually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Do they though? They aren't some kind of god how would they know your if you don't tell them your address or someone else tells them for you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    They might not know it.

    But they would, if anyone with your name & address ever:

    • Stored it on a Google server. (Maybe a business you once placed an order with uses GSuite?)
    • Made a Google/GMail Contacts/Address-book entry with that info. (Maybe you invited a friend or colleague for dinner?)
    • Made those details public (land registry, company officer registry, etc).
    • Etc.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Some people do live off the record. It's somewhat inconvenient but far from impossible. A lot of people I know have their address off the record such that the government won't have it on record, let alone a private company.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Not gonna dispute that.

    However, someone like that not only probably wouldn’t want to submit residency evidence to Google, they probably wouldn’t have utility bills or land registry documents etc that could prove residency. Therefore, they’d be outside the scope of this post.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    "permanant"

    Brought to you by the same companies that "accidentally" re-add you to their spam lists.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago

    Feeding Google more data is always a good idea...

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Why would I do this? It’s just a door with a number on it.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (6 children)

    You can confirm a person's residence by the cars in front of their house. Cross reference objects in the background and if not blurred objects and features in their front yard. Blurring doesn't totally stop this as I've tracked down people's houses from satellite imagery and Facebook pictures to confirm where they lived.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Unless you're renting, your home ownership is public information. You can lookup anybody in your state's public records and know what properties they own and what their mortgage for it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Wow we must all live in the exact same place with the exact same laws...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    I love this comment. The post is discussing a US company and how to remove your US addressed home from its database by providing proof of your home ownership, and some smartass has to point out that they don't live there.

    I don't either, I can just stay on topic. I know Google won't know what to do with my Arabic language deed that doesn't match down to a single home easily on a map, but it's irrelevant so I don't just inject it into the conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The house we moved to last year had been blurred by the previous owners. It's permanent, so we don't get a choice about it.

    Tbh this is the only house I've ever looked up that was blurred.

    I get why, but it's also inconvenient. So many of us (in my area, anyway) look up the house on Streetview when going to an unfamiliar address, to help orient ourselves.

    It's not something I lose sleep over. But given the option, in a neighbourhood with no other blurred houses, in a low-crime, lost surveillance area, I don't think I would have chosen to blur the house.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 55 points 2 months ago (29 children)

    Everyone does know that the front of your house is visible from the street, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 2 months ago (28 children)

    Yes, but with google maps it's visible from anywhere. And some folks might prefer that it not be 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    IMO the same concept as Cris_Citrus makes here, applies when ppl say "your address was always in the phonebook". Or how a film photo stuck in a drawer in Joe Sixpack's house is different from a digital photo analyzed by sophisticated machine learning algorithms by dozens of data brokers to build a dossier of your life. Even if in both cases "someone could always take your picture in public."

    Scale, and ease of access, have real impacts. Even if technically, the data was "always available."

    False equivalences, all of 'em. But pro-surveilence advocates love making them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (26 children)

    Yes and some people would do away with the 1st amendment right to public photography entirely. That doesn't make it right...

    EDIT: Yes - my comment about 1st amendment only applies to U.S. I have no idea if other countries protect public photography in the same manner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not from the US so care little for the constitution. What is in the constitution and what is right are two different things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Okay this one has always cracked me up.

    The constitution people always love talking about the amendments like they're gospel. But like, if the constitution was so great, why do you care about the changes to it? If we make a new amendment does it instantly become as sacred emotionally to them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Your questions aren't horrible and the do have actual answers. However, your tone suggest that you don't actually give a fuck so it's not worth wasting time answering them. Let me know if you were actually being genuine...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Theres a little bit of a difference between doing away with the first amendment right to public photography and people using a massive corporation's own take-down process for removing a publicly hosted images of their house 😅

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    You switched gears in the middle of your statement. Either photography from the public spaces is legal or it isn't. The only reason I don't consider these take-downs a first-amendment violation is because Google is providing the mechanism to do it. They legally have every right to take the picture of your house and tell you to go pound sand if you don't like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I mean.... Sure. I'm not in disagreement with that. And people are welcome to not appreciate a corporation doing that, and use the takedown to remove it if they dont want it there

    I do understand that Google can legally take pictures of whatever is public

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    Oh shit! I never knew we had access to the first amendment in Europe. (I also have no fucking idea what the first amendment is).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution is a part of the US Constitution that prohibits laws violating certain specific rights, two of them being the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Many other countries have some equivalent to this too.

    The relevance here is that taking photos of public spaces is part of freedom of speech and of the press.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Every days a school day and thankyou (no /s here) but as politely as possible I really don't care about the US Constitution, even less it's amendments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I really don’t care

    Are you sure? You'd fit right in with a lot of proudly ignorant Americans... "Duh... I don't know which I'll proudly declare a badge of honor and commit to remaining stupid."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Very sure thanks.

    I have enough things to learn, live and experience from a European perspective (as the culture and the language changes a shit load more than across the USA from geographical perspective)

    I wouldn't call you ignorant for not knowing information from some arcane document over x years old from a European country. Why am I ignorant not knowing it from your culture?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I wouldn’t call you ignorant for not knowing information from some arcane document over x years old from a European country.

    Why not? I almost certainly would be ignorant about it. Ignorant just means I don't know something... there's all kinds of things that I don't know.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    The U.S. 1st amendment actually does have some implications for your speech even though you're in Europe and (presumably) not a U.S. citizen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Hahahaha. I think I laughed so much I dropped my French baguette from the London red bus im sitting in. /s.

    Exactly how does it have have implications in a country it's not a law of?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    Exactly how does it have implications in a country it’s not a law of?

    Because it had, and continues to have, a significant bearing on the development of technologies that are used internationally, many of which shape the society you live in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    So do the laws of China but I don't know much of their laws. So also does the EU but I assume most yanks don't know much about those ones either.

    I don't judge but I do get annoyed at USdefaultism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I don’t judge but I do get annoyed…

    Getting annoyed is a form of judgement.

    … at US defaultism

    Yes, U.S. defaultism is problematic.

    Still, as long as companies, especially US-based ones like Google, are exporting their US-centric products & practices, people outside the US will be exposed to products & practices shaped by US law.

    Because enforcement is rarely watertight, the above holds true even if the importing country’s laws forbid those products & practices.

    Therefore, unless you wish to live in ignorance, it’s worth being aware of the laws that most strongly shape the technologies that in turn shape your society - even laws from jurisdictions outside your own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    And which ones from China or the EU are you planning to investigate and learn about? It works both ways.

    Not knowing the miniature of laws from other countries is not ignorance, there is only so much a person can learn and take in.

    'Getting annoyed is a form of judgment' is an incredibly flipant response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    When you're in tech or in schools, you learn about this and also about EU and Chinese copyright because some of them can sue the pants off or block your site/material from getting money. If you want to use certain tools, including me using this nonUS website, I need to be aware of their rules so I don't mess up the terms and services. US apps have something for EU users for this purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The US Constitution is fucking stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    ...How? It's made for the government not to take away rights. Like it's bad, but it's the bare minimum. It could be worse. There's a 14th, 19th, first 10 amendments for a reason. I don't like the US harming my privacy and the constitution, even though it takes a lot of effort to force, still prevents even more exploitation from happening...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    No, it was made for the government not to take away the rights of rich property owners, slave owners, and traders. It took a couple centuries and a civil war to reform the Constitution to a somewhat reasonable state, and the Supreme Court keeps chipping away at every protection that has been applied to you and me. Law is class power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    This is such a backwards-ass way to do things. I built my house using extra large bricks so it would be pixelated to begin with

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago*

    burglars do their recon in pyjamas now. Make them commute

    Hey now, no need to bash wfh!

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Tbh the outside of my home is publicly viewable anyway. I can't think of why I'd care much.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    It hurts Google, a tiny bit. If enough people do it, it starts to hurt a lot.

    I doubt a block like þis prevents Google from training þeir DL machines on your house data, but it might prevent 3rd parties from getting pictures of your home from Google to train þeir's wiþ.

    It's a legal, eþical means of corporate disobedience which works against þe commoditization of you. You care, because you don't want to be a product, even if you don't realize it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    þeir's wiþ

    You do realize the thorn is an actual letter and not completely equivalent to th everywhere?

    The "th" in "with" is an eth, not a thorn.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth

    As an aside, theirs is written without an apostrophe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    per Wikipedia:

    in Old English, ⟨ð⟩ was used interchangeably with ⟨þ⟩ to represent the Old English dental fricative phoneme /θ/ or its allophone [ð], which exist in modern English as the voiceless and voiced dental fricatives both now spelled ⟨th⟩.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    In Icelandic, sure. Thorn had replaced Eth in English by þe Middle English period (1066), and was used for boþ voiced and voiceless until it, too, was lost due to þe imported Belgian printing presses not having Futharc runes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Being the only blurred thing in the area seems a little conspicuous though

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (2 children)
    1. Þrow a block party.
    2. Get everyone talking about "Blur Together"
    3. ???
    4. Profit!
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago

    Lol as i am going to send google extra information to get a bit more privacy back. Thata stupid

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago

    Do no do this, it will require more info to Google and make your house stick out like a sore thumb.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    But now your making yourself more obvious, and you need to tell google your address. Is it really worth it?

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago

    So now they know where you live....

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    This should be opt-in, not opt out. IDGAF if it is public information that is perfectly viewable from the street, it shouldn't be on the internet without my consent. There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to blur your house aside from the worry of petty thieves. One, your privacy should be treated with respect. Streisand Effect doesn't really apply here because no one gives a shit if your house is blurred. No one cares as streetview passers by. Talk to your neighbors and then the whole street is blurred like my old street.

    This does not obviate the need for action at the legislative level. Google has used the streetview cars to collect plates and radio signals including WiFi information, who knows what else. They have so many databases of information on each of us to sell to adverts and to give freely to police.

    This opt out is a positive, likely carved out by litigation, in a very very negative space for privacy rights.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    This opt out is a positive, likely carved out by litigation, in a very very negative space for privacy rights.

    It's not, it's less than Google used to do for these requests. In 2009, I requested my house be taken off streetview. They removed it by skipping mine and a few houses on each side.

    Then they went down my back lane, so everyone got a good look at my back yard anyway.

    Privacy today is a never ending battle, but Google started this nonsense a long time ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›