"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
One of the most pernicious cookies is the one that allows them to identify nearby devices. Even if you do not allow location specifically, consider exactly how much location data can be pieced together from that alone. It's impossible to overestimate the amount of data they have on you.
Sorry - I meant "permission", not cookie. If this is on (for Bluetooth headphones, sharing content, smart home etc) you could be leaking your location. If your partner shares their location, and you don't - but you do allow your phone permission for nearby devices - your partners phone is revealing their own location, and their proximity to to you (your location). Third party cookies can be relevant for this because they allow browsers to identify/differentiate other users on the same network. If one user shares their location (or their location is known by the site they visited), then the other users on the networks location is also obtained.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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."
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?
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.
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 😅
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.
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
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.
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⟩.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Someone on my street has done this and it completely fucks with street view for my own house, even though the blurred house is on a sheet running perpendicular to my street
I don't understand why anyone would do this, if anything all it does is draw massive attention to the fact that someone wanted their house blurred.
It makes it harder to case the house though. If the street view shows a low overhang, with a easy way up to a second story window, or maybe a tree, A/C heat pump, all sorts of things, then I could see an argument for wanting that blurred.
not really, in Germany google street view never took off as everyone asked to be blurred, but then apple did it later and it worked. I'm not so sure what was my point here
When StreetView was introduced this dominated public debate in Germany for weeks. It was all the rage, "how dare they to photograph everything?"
One official even suggested "it's awesome, police can now patrol the streets from an office chair", because that is how much of a backwater country Germany is digitally.
Anyway, people saw immediately all the crime which all the criminal criminals would do with this tool (which tells you something about the state of mind of the "righteous folks"). Anyway, half the country was blurred, because everybody knew about it. And it is the reason, why StreetView is so patchy in Germany (or at least was for the longest time, didn't check much in recent years) compared to the neighbouring states, 'cause Google pretty much said "Fuck these fucking Germans with their fucking shit".
Apple came around some years later with their version, nobody cared anymore 😅
I'm pretty sure google will still have your house number associated with your house. You're just making it harder for people to be sure they're at the right house when they show up there, like if you fell or choked on your meal and needed an ambulance.
This is why I prefer living a quarter mile up a private road. Just a few years in and already if I see a car I don't recognize I stand from my rocking chair and a ask wifey to grab the gun.
110 Comments
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 141 pts · 1d
"Google says the document is deleted after 60 days."
Lol. They absolutely keep all of the data.
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 76 pts · 1d
"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."
lattrommi@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 10h
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?
scytale@piefed.zip · 123 pts · 23h
The two counter arguments to this are:
You are giving more personal data to google to prove you live at that address.
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.
victorz@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 21h
Yeah, I was about to say, I'm not falling for this "privacy" service lol. Nice try, Google.
Dextofen@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 18h
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.
lattrommi@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 10h
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.
adwijoma@lemmy.ml · 105 pts · 1d
I'd rather my door be visible than tell google where I live.
Obituarykidney@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 1d
Google already knows. They just don't have a reason to check usually.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 36 pts · 1d
Google might or might not know where I live but if I send them a utility bill from my Google account then they definitely know where I live.
CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21h
Google 100% knows where you live
homosapien@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 15h
if you integrate them into your life
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 10h
pineapple@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 1d
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?
modem_down@thebrainbin.org · 15 pts · 1d
They might not know it.
But they would, if anyone with your name & address ever:
communism@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 20h
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.
modem_down@thebrainbin.org · 2 pts · 17h
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.
homosapien@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 15h
If you live in the united states of genocide they probably do, anywhere else, maybe or maybe not
homosapien@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 15h
this assumes that I have people I want to share my address with
Arola@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 1d
One of the most pernicious cookies is the one that allows them to identify nearby devices. Even if you do not allow location specifically, consider exactly how much location data can be pieced together from that alone. It's impossible to overestimate the amount of data they have on you.
Sxan@piefed.zip · -8 pts · 1d
Tell me more about þis cookie. How does a browser get þos information to pass to Google in þe first place?
pet1t@piefed.social · 12 pts · 1d
piss cookies, you say?
Arola@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 1d
Sorry - I meant "permission", not cookie. If this is on (for Bluetooth headphones, sharing content, smart home etc) you could be leaking your location. If your partner shares their location, and you don't - but you do allow your phone permission for nearby devices - your partners phone is revealing their own location, and their proximity to to you (your location). Third party cookies can be relevant for this because they allow browsers to identify/differentiate other users on the same network. If one user shares their location (or their location is known by the site they visited), then the other users on the networks location is also obtained.
Sxan@piefed.zip · -2 pts · 17h
Is þis an Android þing? I don't have þis on my Linux phone.
ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
If you own your house, most states in the US publish a GIS map where that information is public.
echo@lemmy.today · 53 pts · 1d
Everyone does know that the front of your house is visible from the street, right?
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 47 pts · 1d
Yes, but with google maps it's visible from anywhere. And some folks might prefer that it not be 🤷🏻♂️
FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 21h
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.
echo@lemmy.today · -17 pts · 1d
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.
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 33 pts · 1d
Not everyone's in the US...
echo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 17h
Fair - added a note to my comment. Thank you.
Technoworcester@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 17h
Good edit. Thankyou.
CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml · 22 pts · 1d
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.
frank@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 1d
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?
echo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 17h
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...
frank@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 17h
I omega don't give a fuck, so good call! It was definitely rhetorical.
I think worshipping a 250 year old document is weird as heck.
Technoworcester@feddit.uk · 12 pts · 1d
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).
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 1d
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.
Technoworcester@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 18h
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.
echo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 17h
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."
Technoworcester@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 17h
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?
echo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 17h
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.
Technoworcester@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 17h
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?
modem_down@thebrainbin.org · 1 pts · 16h
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.
Technoworcester@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 16h
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
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 1d
The US Constitution is fucking stupid.
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 6 pts · 1d
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 😅
echo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 17h
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.
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 8h
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
Raven8628@lemmy.zip · 51 pts · 18h
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.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 10h
Right?
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 38 pts · 21h
don't tell google where you live
Ravenheart@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 19h
If you use Maps, they already know.
dawcas@scribe.disroot.org · 3 pts · 7h
Probably if you have a smartphone they know.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 10h
Your DMV license is researchable so ?
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 19h
i don't use it much
JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 18h
So they know
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 18h
they guess.
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 35 pts · 1d
Tbh the outside of my home is publicly viewable anyway. I can't think of why I'd care much.
Sxan@piefed.zip · -15 pts · 1d
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.
F04118F@feddit.nl · 21 pts · 1d
You do realize the thorn is an actual letter and not completely equivalent to
theverywhere?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.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 23h
per Wikipedia:
Sxan@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 22h
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.
foofighter@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 1d
Lmao check his profile. þey're doing god's work
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 30 pts · 1d
Being the only blurred thing in the area seems a little conspicuous though
AliOski@feddit.nl · 12 pts · 1d
Streisand Effect here I come!
FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 18h
I just tell people I was out of focus when I was born, and doctors weren't able to correct it.
Sxan@piefed.zip · -8 pts · 1d
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 28 pts · 1d
"permanant"
Brought to you by the same companies that "accidentally" re-add you to their spam lists.
ramble81@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 14h
Sadly it is permanent. Moved into a house that was blurred and wanted it unblurred. Sadly they have no process to do that.
apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 1d
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.
non_burglar@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
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.
apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22h
No disagreement. Like I said, privacy rights are not in a good place. 🤷
bampop@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 1d
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
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 18 pts · 1d
Hey now, no need to bash wfh!
pineapple@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 1d
But now your making yourself more obvious, and you need to tell google your address. Is it really worth it?
mycatsays@aussie.zone · 16 pts · 15h
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.
Kushan@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
Someone on my street has done this and it completely fucks with street view for my own house, even though the blurred house is on a sheet running perpendicular to my street
I don't understand why anyone would do this, if anything all it does is draw massive attention to the fact that someone wanted their house blurred.
Auli@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 1d
What is funny about the house that did it on my street move down one jump and look back and it isn't blurred.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 15 pts · 12h
Why would I do this? It’s just a door with a number on it.
GladiusB@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 8h
Yea. I don't really care either. I don't see the point in making the effort. Unless I am missing something.
transarchistcuddleslut@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 7h
All it seems like is an easy way for google to link your address to the rest of your data.
DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 8h
Feeding Google more data is always a good idea...
Lanske@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 21h
Lol as i am going to send google extra information to get a bit more privacy back. Thata stupid
capnbubblebuns@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 22h
This does nothing but make your house more obvious. It's better to blend in than to stick out.
lattrommi@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 10h
It makes it harder to case the house though. If the street view shows a low overhang, with a easy way up to a second story window, or maybe a tree, A/C heat pump, all sorts of things, then I could see an argument for wanting that blurred.
Limfjorden@feddit.dk · 10 pts · 1d
Streisand time
whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
not really, in Germany google street view never took off as everyone asked to be blurred, but then apple did it later and it worked. I'm not so sure what was my point here
AliOski@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 1d
Man I specifically looked in the comments for the link to that page and couldn't find it and then posted it myself.
danielfm123@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 7h
So now they know where you live....
AliOski@feddit.nl · 5 pts · 1d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
privacydingus@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 2h
Do no do this, it will require more info to Google and make your house stick out like a sore thumb.
kossa@feddit.org · 5 pts · 6h
😅. Okay, story time:
When StreetView was introduced this dominated public debate in Germany for weeks. It was all the rage, "how dare they to photograph everything?"
One official even suggested "it's awesome, police can now patrol the streets from an office chair", because that is how much of a backwater country Germany is digitally.
Anyway, people saw immediately all the crime which all the criminal criminals would do with this tool (which tells you something about the state of mind of the "righteous folks"). Anyway, half the country was blurred, because everybody knew about it. And it is the reason, why StreetView is so patchy in Germany (or at least was for the longest time, didn't check much in recent years) compared to the neighbouring states, 'cause Google pretty much said "Fuck these fucking Germans with their fucking shit".
Apple came around some years later with their version, nobody cared anymore 😅
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 10h
Damn, they'll have to go all the way to zillow if they wanna case your place, huh?
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
Will this work for an apartment building? I'm about to find out
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
Okay i did shots from maybe 8 angles, this is the time it took including scanning the waterbill on my fridge, wish me luck
you cant even see my apartment from the street 😈
Ive moved house so many times the last five years, i didnt know this was so easy
hexdream@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10h
Anyone going to try this with the Whitehouse?
DreamsK@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
Blur your house on google maps
lattrommi@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 10h
how hard would it be to just do this automatically for every address? to bring down the street view machine for good?
I'm not suggesting anyone do this, I am just curious how it would work or how it would play out.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
So Google takes new photos periodically. We use them for legal evidence.
Also, burglars are using Google maps? That's funny.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 22h
I just took my house numbers off the house, may not be much but works for me
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 20h
I hope you never have a fall or choke on your meal….that’s a really bad idea.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 19h
There on the mail box you just can’t see it from the street easily, I live in a suburb it’s pretty easy to figure it out
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 17h
Then what are you accomplishing?
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 16h
Not having my address viewable from google Maps
ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 11h
I'm pretty sure google will still have your house number associated with your house. You're just making it harder for people to be sure they're at the right house when they show up there, like if you fell or choked on your meal and needed an ambulance.
curiousaur@reddthat.com · -11 pts · 1d
This is why I prefer living a quarter mile up a private road. Just a few years in and already if I see a car I don't recognize I stand from my rocking chair and a ask wifey to grab the gun.
ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 1d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kaylin_Gillis
That's how you get things like this.