the only valid objection to having your house’s picture online would be if your house were one of only a few online. but that’s not the case.

as for what gives them the right: this is all in PUBLIC view, simon, and they are creating a digital reproduction of a public space without unduly focusing on anything and creating any more publicity for somebody or something than existed within plain sight the day the image was taken. have you ever taken a picture of a friend, and somebody you don’t know was in a background? should you get sued for showing that picture in public? maybe you should be if you zoom in on the stranger and plaster their photo all over the city. but there is a reasonable usage of that picture between the two extremes.

the key word is reasonable. i think there’s a good case to be made that google’s streetmaps is just that. your reactionary hyperbole leaves no room for any discussion on what is reasonable.

i understand some people doesnt want their property to be on the web, but Google should allow users to control the streetview images other than themselves doing it. Just like uploading photos. Then this way its not their responsibility to think about privacy. Just put a note saying make sure your images are ok or something like that.

But i really like the idea. Its best if its done around tourist areas and musuems etc, i think this would be more beneficial than just doing views of streets. Afterall who care about what your car or property looks like.

The point I was trying to make at the end of the essay was that the perpetrator of the humilation and privacy violation in your hypothetical is gstreetsightings.com, not Google. The former are the ones who bothered to wade through the database and focus on specific images, and they are the digital paparazzi, not Google. If a photographer publishes a picture of you in public that he shot from the street, do you blame the photographer, or the camera company? Google is doing nothing other than representing the real world, making no selection and defining no prominence. If they focused on the people of one street, that would be a privacy violation, but they don’t. I think that’s one reason why the launched with so many cities, instead of just San Jose.

To Whom It May Concern:

I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source. I am none of the persons I am being accused of and do not suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD. My attorney, Richard Rosenthal, has been supplied with these facts along with a request that all false claims, slanderous remarks and defaming content concerning me be removed promptly from the site. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Comment by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza — February 13, 2008 @ 04:04PM

I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister’s fights with Griot and her sister’s role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.

Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly — February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM

Mary Spicuzza, a journalist for the SF Weekly, attempted to unmask an anonymous editor at Wikipedia who had offender her sister by urging other editors to take down her sister’s vanity article. She wrote an article about it — an interesting article about how the tormentor had bothered her sister, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. You can read about the episode here:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators‘_noticeboard/IncidentArchive372