Hard News: They can see your house from here
211 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Aidan, does that mean the farm runs from Makino Road through to Kimbolton Road? Might I know them?
Yes and maybe.
I'll email their name ...
The long way was a great ride on a sunny morning, and the winding roads were a lot more enjoyable than one long straight one. And riding up Cheltenham Hill was an excellent fitness challenge.
Teenagers think they're immortal. I was entirely unperturbed by cars hurtling around corners, and I enthusiastically soaked up the slipstream of truck and trailer units.OUCH! I just recalled meeting one of those brutes coming round a blind corner. I was left with that feeling that somehow the laws of physics had been violated as there was no way we could have both fitted on that road at that moment. Like I said. Respec.
-
I found a google-code example that will drive your route for you using streetview, at:
http://gmaps-samples.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/streetview/streetview_directions.html
But with New Zealand internet speeds, it is probably faster to actually drive the route. -
I just can't shake the feeling that I'll soon need to think about what I put on to bring in my washing.
I've always said that I'll close the door on tolerance when I switch on & see myself being filmed taking a dump on some reality TV show.
So it could be worse.
-
That said, if you're somewhat famous or notorious, having anyone with a crush on or a vendetta against you being able to scope out your road might be a real pain. I foresee Whaleoil, at least, having some fun with EFA authorisers' home addresses come the next election. It saves the trouble of a camera driveby, right?
He'd have been able to do that last few elections if he subscribed to a decent public GPS system - used to have one in a job I had, most brilliant stalking too IMO, enter a name & it told you how many houses a person owned (pays to have an obscure LAQC name), where they are on a map, or alternatively, enter an address & get the owner's info. Match it all up with the satellite photos...
This has been available the last decade or so.
-
If anyone is interested in cycle-lanes and the abuse of a repeat offender parking on it might want to pop 88 Riccarton Road Christchurch in and see the repeat offender in action.
-
Heather W sez:
Hiro Protagonist, wondering which element you were picking up as 'interesting'. In Edendale, Southland;
Does that image show OK for you? When I look at it, there's a big chunk of road appears covering up most of the storefront. Weird.
-
Of course, it's only a matter of time before one becomes the other. Someone is working out a way to mine saleable data from this system right now - I'd put money on it.
Dear Householder,
I was recently in your area and noticed that your house needed repainting/roof re-tiling/fence re-painting. I hope you don't mind that I've taken the opportunity to offer you our world class service, and if you respond to this letter, at a 25% discount...
-
Well, I'd be a lot more nervous with real-time updating - that would present more obvious issues of privacy and security, since people can see what's happening at your place now rather than what happened at a particular random point in the past.
I agree live feeds change the nature of the issue, I asked the question because I think the privacy issues are not simply about the public nature of the data; there's also issues about it's collection and use.
...whereas google's job is to take over the world, so they're not overstepping. And in NZ post's case it seemed more like personal information and probably could be associated with a name. The fact that Google's version is public actually seems a bonus to me in this case.
Good points, but should we really be less concerned about the potential intrusion into our private lives simply 'cause it's a groovy corporation? I do agree however, that the fact that the information is public makes it less sinister.
And it probably is part of the collapse of privacy. But I quite like it myself so far.
Technology is the opiate of the masses?
-
Basically, it doesn't bother me, but I am more and more bemused that it doesn't bother me.
-
It bothers me about as much as it would have bothered me when the camera was first invented. Yes, such an amazing device could be used in shonky and dodgy ways, capturing pictures people didn't agree to, and making the recording of what someone looks like 1000 times easier. But then again, it's just cool in it's own right, for a massive range of perfectly legitimate purposes. Which is way more important.
-
I was recently in your area and noticed that your house needed repainting/roof re-tiling/fence re-painting.
If he can tell that from the quality of the photos I've been seeing, good luck to him.
-
Good points, but should we really be less concerned about the potential intrusion into our private lives simply 'cause it's a groovy corporation?
I think we've established that, if it's your front door/fence/visible from the street, it's not considered private anyway. The Hosking decision (Mike, not Rob) was pretty unambiguous about photos in a public place.
-
I know there are some pervy people out there but for goodness sake, who cares what knickers you wear and how saggy your boobs are. If you wont dance naked in your own home because you think the neighbours will see you, what a sad sack of a world we live in.
I reckon if anyone gets a glimpse of something shocking as they stroll past my place, who cares. Of course if they hide behind the fence, hoping to get a glimpse, I'll sent the dogs on them. Dog drool is hard to clean up and Timmy is very licky.
-
I think we've established that, if it's your front door/fence/visible from the street, it's not considered private anyway.
Mark, I don't mean to harp on, but the fact that the information itself is not private doesn't entirely resolve matters for me. As I said earlier, what if it was a live feed of your door - still public 'information', but it's use and access are factors also - for me at least.
That said, I think I've registered my concerns, modest though they are, so don't need to keep banging on...
The Hosking decision (Mike, not Rob) was pretty unambiguous about photos in a public place.
I don't recall the detail of this decision, but there's an increasing number of constraints on the use of cameras, including on beaches in Sydney and "public pools" (which of course often aren't strictly public).
-
Technology is the opiate of the masses?
Oh my, yes.
-
I can see our house, perched high above the road, where Grey Street dips between Te Aroha Street and Hamilton East School. But the giant paulownia isn't there anymore--it died during the summer draught and now lies stacked, making an interesting pattern, against the garden wall. I counted more than 40 growth rings on the primary trunk, so it had a grand old life.
-
Timmy is very licky
Dinah, I like yr style.
-
Mark, I don't mean to harp on, but the fact that the information itself is not private doesn't entirely resolve matters for me. As I said earlier, what if it was a live feed of your door - still public 'information', but it's use and access are factors also - for me at least.
I am reminded of Michael Moore's "The Awful Truth" who put a web cam across the road of the apartment of Linda Tripp and posted the live feed on the internet.
-
I don't recall the detail of this decision, but there's an increasing number of constraints on the use of cameras, including on beaches in Sydney and "public pools" (which of course often aren't strictly public).
From Austlii - Hosking vs Runting 2004:
Michael Hosking is a well known presenter on New Zealand television and radio. He and his wife Marie separated in late 2002, and a women’s magazine, New Idea, ran a brief article previewing the couple’s first Christmas apart (without involvement from the Hoskings). To illustrate the article, the magazine used file photographs of Mike and Marie, but also wanted to print photographs of their twin eighteen-month old daughters, Ruby and Bella. Since their parents had not put the girls in the public eye since their birth, there were no photos available, so New Idea commissioned a freelance photographer, Simon Runting, to acquire pictures of the twins. He managed to do so, snapping pictures of the children in their pushchair while they were out shopping in central Auckland with their mother. Marie Hosking was unaware that the pictures had been taken until she was later notified by the magazine, prior to publication. She and her husband objected strongly to the proposed publication and applied for injunctive relief against the magazine. Randerson J refused the injunction at first instance, and the Hoskings appealed.
The findings of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal agreed unanimously that no injunction should be granted in these circumstances. The majority confirmed the existence of a privacy tort in New Zealand dealing with wrongful publication of private facts, and went some way to defining the ambit of that tort. Gault P and Blanchard J stated:[6]The scope of a cause, or causes, of action protecting privacy should be left to incremental development by future courts. ... In this jurisdiction it can be said that there are two fundamental requirements for a successful claim for interference with privacy:
The existence of facts in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
Publicity given to those private facts that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.
However, their Honours stated that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the children had reasonable expectations of privacy, and that publication would be highly (or significantly[7] ) offensive to an objective reasonable person.[8] In addition, all members of the Court agreed that damages rather than an injunction was the primary remedy for a breach of privacy, so even had the plaintiffs been able to meet the threshold they may well have failed to get the remedy they wanted.[9] The minority, however, took the view that the plaintiffs’ case could not get off the ground at all because there was no justification for having a privacy tort in New Zealand.
-
As for your Sydney issues, Australians are all a bit odd anyway. Leave that den of inequity and return to your rightful home immediately.
-
Sorry, forgot to quote the key point:
Anderson J makes the point even more strongly:
[267] ... Freedom of expression is the first and last trench in the protection of liberty. All of the rights affirmed by NZBORA are protected by that particular right. Just as truth is the first casualty of war, so suppression of truth is the first objective of the despot. In my view, the development of modern communications media, including for example the world wide web, has given historically unprecedented exposure of and accountability for injustices, undemocratic practices and the despoliation of human rights. A new limitation on freedom of expression requires, in my respectful view, greater justification than that a reasonable person would be wounded in their feelings by the publication of true information of a personal nature which does not have the quality of legally recognised confidentiality.
-
I am reminded of Michael Moore's "The Awful Truth" who put a web cam across the road of the apartment of Linda Tripp and posted the live feed on the internet.
I live directly across a road from an East Eauropean embassy, I'm told that they have CCTV surveillance of our part of the street.
Far from bothering us (OK, it's not a public feed as far as I know), we figured any burglary will be quite quick to resolve.
-
we figured any burglary will be quite quick to resolve.
Unless the burglars work for the embassy.
-
Unless the burglars work for the embassy.
Now you;'re talking my brand of paranoia. Did I mention they used to be dirty commies?
-
Did I mention they used to be dirty commies?
Precisely: what's yours is theirs.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.