The difference is that a satellite photo has limited resolution (at least everyone I’ve seen so far), whereas the photos they’ve taken for the Street View are at a very close distance, allowing the viewer to see in detail the exterior of the home. It’s one thing when your home is setback 200 feet on a 4 acre plot, so that the picture lacks sufficient detail to ascertain specific points of entry, (that is, I suppose one could claim that it’s little different from the satellite photo), but it’s an entirely different matter when the home is situated (as a vast majority of home are in the US) relatively close to the street, and details like doorknobs, street addresses, window types, etc. and personal property shown within the windows are clearly defined by their photos.

Are we all supposed to live in a world where Google can use their need for greed to place us in the position of having to purchase video security systems and shotguns to protect ourselves from their need for profit at our expense? I know that I’m now considering for the first time in my life buying a gun, because in light of their greedy efforts I really don’t feel safe in my home at all anymore.

The law needs to be changed. Google (or any other company) should not have the legal right to provide up-close photography of my personal property. If you want to sign off to allow them this right, thenn so be it, but I don;t believe that you or they should be able to do so for me. I think their ability to get away with this is a glaring loophole in the First ammendment and an obvious example of the moral vacuity of their executives and supporters.

It’s a sticky wicket to be sure. On the one hand you don’t want people taking pictures of your house. Then again any bored teen with an internet connection can case the Liquidmatrix office from space.

It’s annoying but, I can’t agree with you on the facilitation angle.

Thanks for the comment.

Considering that my house is located just 5 feet from the road, located near the end of a culdesac, and that the resolution is high enough that the exterior of three sides of my home are quite clearly defined, including nearly all means of ground level entry, my fundamental problem is one of security.

Yes, anyone can walk or drive down the road and case my house, but in doing so, they open themselves to observation by me, my neighbors, and the authorities. That is, Google has,m in my view, provided potential criminals with a method for virtually “casing” my home. (By “casing, I mean investigating a property for the purposes of a future criminal activity, ie, robbery, assault, arson, etc.) Regardless of privacy concerns (which I also have, and which may or may not be moot), the issue of security is of tantamount importance.

I haven’t seen the Google intrusion into the Pennsylvania couple’s property, (nor do I intend to seek it out), but if it’s anything like the one that I found for mine I would be sorely tempted to have added the concerns that I have briefly outlined above to that legal suit.

Again, yes, anyone can walk or drive down a public road (or even private in certain cases), take photos, or otherwise investigate a property (as long as they don’t set foot on that property), but Google is providing a virtual method for doing so, and that, imo, is truly problematic to personal security and security of one’s personal property.