Google has announced it will allow people to Opt-Out of its newly launched Street Views.
Google Maps‘ Street Views option shows 360 degree street level photographs, including people on the street. It’s another step toward global transparency, or invasion of privacy, depending on how you see it (or how you’re being seen). Legally, Courts have held that there is no “expectation” of privacy in public places. Yes, but maybe there is an expectation that your image will not be permanently viewable and reproducible worldwide on the internet.
According to Google:
Street View only features imagery taken on public property. This imagery is no different from what any person can readily capture or see walking down the street, …We provide easily accessible tools for flagging inappropriate or sensitive imagery for review and removal…We routinely review takedown requests and act quickly to remove objectionable imagery.
Hmm…sounds alot like Zillow’s Rich Barton’s response to my question whether Zillow would allow an owner to prevent a stranger from advertising the fact on Zillow that their home was “for sale”. (Note: see all comments in this link for context):
That would be akin to an owner or an agent asking the public to please stop talking about the fact that a home is for sale and at what price, be it in the coffee shop, while dropping the kids off at baseball practice, or on Zillow. We think spotlighting conversations on Zillow that are already taking place in the real world continues a fantastically positive trend towards transparency in an historically opaque marketplace. So, unless contributions by Zillow community members are incorrect, unproductive, or off topic, we will let their contributions stay.
David G added the following rationale for Zillow’s online Q&A of homes:
We view Home Q&A as an online incarnation of the conversation that’s happening off-line in neighborhoods today. WITH that assumption, it’s easy to answer your questions because Zillow mirrors the real world (emphasis added).
Really? Are offline verbal conversations (usually between a small group) the same as online written Q&A, which can be seen by hundreds or thousands, and reverberate in cached perpetuity? If Zillow home Q&A mirrors the real world, methinks we’re at a carnival. (Note to David G: a humorous (pictorial hyperbolic?) metaphor to make the point online Q&A differs substantially from offline reality).
Well, thanks to Kevin Bankston, and perhaps others, Google has recognized it may be legal, but irresponsible, to deny an individual’s request not to be included in its master plan. I guess Google is serious about its branding truths: Focus on the end user and You can make money without doing evil.
Now everyone knows I’m being evicted. This is probably a construction notice but you get the idea (via Streetviewspy.com)
Will Rich Barton see the logic, and owner/listing agent goodwill, in allowing owners and listing agents to opt-out of
- inaccurate zestimates (they mislead buyers)
- participation of their home in Q&A (I don’t want to monitor this & I don’t trust your flagging system)
- allowing others to say their home is for sale (I should control how my home is marketed)
- agent ads on my home (my home is not bait as a lead generation tool)
….. all of which are for the world to see in perpetuity on Zillow.com?
Sources:
Cameras everywhere, even in online maps. (ZDnet)
Want off Street View...? (Wired)
Related Posts:
Unzestimate My Home: Will Zillow Let Owner’s Opt-Out?
Will Zillow Let Listing Owners Opt-Out Now?
The Human Listing Site, Zillowfying Your Privacy Under the Guise of Transparency.
Comment of the Day.
Technorati Tags: Google Maps, Google Street Views, Zillow, Opt Out
I agree having a conversation on the street is NOT the same as it being shown the world over.
I applaud Google for letting people opt out. I hope Zillow follows suit.
Yes, I’m all for transparency, but there is also the privacy issue, which is being eroded daily in the U.S.
I’m so sad to hear the maps are being altered. I’ll miss all the great pics of people trying to break into places, or picking their noses.
You can still see the people pics at a number of street view sites popping up to take advantage of the technology.
Google will opt-you out if you ask. That’s nice of them. They aren’t legally required to do it but they do it– that’s something users respect– a concern for what “they” want, despite what the company can legally do.
Zillow, on the other hand, will not let owners or listing agents opt-out of anything. But you can still ask.
Not being in the real estate business representing homeowners, IMO Zillow is not as sensitive to owners’ rights as we think they should be. Having come from the “buy side” (Remember, B&F were looking as buyers before they founded zillow), it is only natural that the site is “buyer biased”, in our opinion. That’s why there are up to 2 values attached to a home & the owner has no say in the matter. That’s why there is “recorded” questioning of the homeowner—& if the homeowner doesn’t want to answer– heck, let the neighbor answer it —that’s a pro-buyer slant. Now, there is nothing wrong with helping the buyer—but don’t do it at the expense of the owner who may not want to cooperate for any number of reasons (eg: the owner may have been a travel agent put out of business by Expedia and doesn’t want to support zillow in any way)
Some homeowners want their homes marketed discretely—no lawn signs, no ads— yet zillow would allow Joe Blow who finds out it’s for sale to tell the world on zillow, “hey, this guy’s house is for sale. Got any questions, ask me”– that doesn’t sit right with me. I’m sorry, that owner should have an opt-out.
I can see both sides of the argument but I must say that their responses to criticism were well stated.
Havens
Are you referring to Google or Zillow?
So, now, an owner who is selling their home should be able to opt out of having people say so? That’s hardly practical; if you’re selling your house and you’re doing it right, people are going to talk about it. Why should sellers be able to censor that discussion and why would they?
As far as I can tell, Google’s policy is in response to personal privacy concerns. As you can see above, Google’s images include people and at that resolution you could argue that those people are identifiable. Zillow’s policy is not to publish this information and to remove personal information that was posted by others at the user or owners’ request. So, with regards to personal information, Zillow is in fact more respectful of our users’ privacy.
David,
Yes, an owner should have the right to opt-out of having a stranger say their house is for sale on zillow. If the owner wants to market privately & does not want it known online that the home is for sale (for whatever reason)their wishes should be respected. Don’t you agree?
Personal privacy, or “right to market as I see fit”, (use whatever term you prefer) should encompass the right NOT to have others say your home is for sale online at Zillow.
It should be practical–if you can flag Q&A, you should be able to block access to the “this house is for sale” option.
“Discussion censorship” is not the issue, it is “publication online”. Zillow is allowing persons other than the homeowner to disseminate to the world, via the internet, that their home is for sale, against the seller’s wishes. Do you not see ANY risk with having “this home for sale” available to anyone online? We do.
Offline Conversation v. online publication
Here is an analogy you may appreciate to show what I mean when I say there is a vast difference between offline converations vs. online publication:
If I know you are traveling out of the country for 30 days, I can pass this on in a conversation…BUT would you mind if I also put it online on my new site: People traveling overseas for extended periods of time:
David G who lives at (what’s your address?)will be traveling across Europe for the month of July.
Can you see the difference now?