Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Google Street View Shoots the Same Woman 43 Times 106

Posted by samzenpus
from the get-your-face-out-there dept.
Geoffrey.landis writes "Terry Southgate discovered that his wife Wendy appears on the Google Street View of his neighborhood not once or twice but a whopping 43 times. From the article: 'It seems as if the Street View car simply followed the same route as Wendy and Trixie. However, Wendy was a little suspicious that the car was doing something on the "tricksie" side. Several of the Street View shots show Wendy looking with some concern towards the car that was, well, to put it politely, crawling along the curb. "I didn't know what it was doing. It was just driving round very, very slowly," Wendy told the Sun.' The next best thing to being a movie star — a Street View star!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Street View Shoots the Same Woman 43 Times

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Monday April 26, 2010 @03:23PM (#31987880) Journal

    Google Street View Shoots the Same Woman 43 Times

    I knew that gang violence had gotten bad in some parts of the world but now even Google vans have become roving death squads spewing bullets. What? Was there a Bing van behind her or something? Forty three shots! How many clips is that and will they be holding Brin and Page accountable?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ae1294 (1547521)

      Depends on the handgun but probably 4 clips. Then again it was probably 2 if they used an AR-17 but it could have just been 1 if Google paid for the 100 round mag...

      I agree that things must be bad now that Google feels the need to take out Bring users in the middle of the day. What if children had been near by!

      Do no evil... right... Maybe Google should think of the children and call off there holly war...

      • by JWSmythe (446288)

        Consider that it's vehicle based, and they drive an awful lot. To get that much shooting done, they're using a belt fed gun. Magazines are for portability. Belts are for throwing lots of ammunition down range. :)

      • by Gilmoure (18428)

        I had a Calico M-100 with a hundred round clip but it was .22LR. They also made 9mm but that only went up to 50 round.

      • They aren't "clips" they are magazines. Clips hold rounds of ammunition for insertion into a magazine. AR-17? You mean AR-15, right, I find it highly unlikely you are familiar with the very rare AR-17 shotgun, but I could be wrong. In this context though, I doubt it. If you are wondering how many MAGAZINES of ammo used in a handgun would be 43 rounds, 3 would be the most likely, assuming a regular 9mm handgun. Mag capacity varies depending on the gun and caliber of ammo used. If one uses a handgun based
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Google Street View Shoots the Same Woman 43 Times

      Bet she's getting tired of that.

    • I'm picturing a team of Googlers driving by in a black van, holding out their cameras sideways while busting some pictures now. :P

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ManlySpork (1542827)
      Actually most modern handguns are loaded using magazines. There is an easy way to differentiate between clips and magazines, sadly people, especially the media are most often mistaken. I'm not guaranteeing this method of differentiation has a 100% accuracy, but: If it holds bullets and is used to slide the bullets into the weapon (into it's magazine well). It's a clip. If it hold bullets and is inserted into the weapon, it's a magazine. Some people might say, they both hold bullets, what does it matter?
      • You beat me to the punch! I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets irked when people say clip instead of magazine. I wish I had some mod points for you!
        • by sowth (748135) *

          Yes, but when you say magazine, don't most people get confused and think you are talking about pornography?

      • What about En-Bloc clips for the M1 Garand? Holds a bunch of cartridges (and seriously, you can't be all pedantic about clip vs magazine and then get the cartridge/bullet thing wrong :) ), slides into the gun. Thoughts?

        I've seen it defined (IMHO better) thus:

        Clips hold rounds, but typically at least a part of each round protrudes from the clip;
        Magazines encase rounds.

      • by Grishnakh (216268)

        Some people might say, they both hold bullets, what does it matter?

        Don't forget, they also hold casings, primers, and powder, in addition to the bullets. These cool, modern inventions are called "cartridges".

    • They cut the poor woman in half!
  • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Monday April 26, 2010 @03:29PM (#31987978) Journal
    Where's Waldo? Now Where's Wendy!
  • Blocked streets? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by topham (32406) on Monday April 26, 2010 @03:32PM (#31988032) Homepage

    In a country known for the government being big brother they are blocking streets so google can't take pictures? What?

    • by zero_out (1705074)
      It's also a country known for establishing colonies, then angering with their overbearing government, to the point of inducing rebellion and the formation of a new superpower.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Thud457 (234763)
        Let this be a lesson to you boys and girls. Sure, you might be able to offload a bunch of religulous crazies by shipping them somewhere else. But you run the risk that by some strange fluke, the natives won't murder them in their beds, and pretty soon, you have a whole continent full of religulous crazies with nukes.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by theaveng (1243528)

          America

          Canada

          Australia

          India

          Yeah that planned worked really well for the British. The funny thing is that they never learned their lesson, and just keep pissing-off the colonists.

          • by walshy007 (906710)
            Canada and Australia still recognize the queen as their head of state. The brits never pissed them off enough to rebel, hell the US even tried invading canada because they still supported the brits.
    • erm - "they" are citizens keeping Google out of "their" street. The opposite of Big Brother.
      • by Shatrat (855151)
        But not literally opposite, since they don't seem to oppose Big Brother itself.
    • by JWSmythe (446288)

      That's easy. Everyone knows Big Brother is there for their own protection. He sees all to make sure we're safe. we all trust Big Brother to protect us. Well, unless Big Brother sees we did something he didn't like, then there's nowhere to hide.

      Google, on the other hand, is just invading our privacy by taking pictures.

      Photography is illegal, or so I was told when I was taking photographs from a public road. It's amazing how quick you can get the sheriffs department and H

      • by hedwards (940851)
        It's not illegal, if they told you that they were either misinformed or lying. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, if it can be seen from public space, it's unlikely to be considered private by legal definitions. But IANAL so YMMV.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by dotgain (630123)
          Arguing with a cop over the finer points of the law also isn't illegal, but it might as well be.
          • However, arguing with a mall rentacop over the finer points of law is downright fun. After the real cops arrive then you get all polite and stuff (and do what they say, because they have handcuffs, guns, and Miranda cards, and while in theory you will get your property (camera) back, in reality this is not always the case).

          • by JWSmythe (446288)

            Well, I wouldn't say illegal, but it can be downright unhealthy. I've never been on the unhealthy side of a taser, CS gas, nor pepper spray, but I've experienced them as parts of various trainings. Well, only the direct contact stun gun, not the projectile version. None were very pleasant.

            I don't particularly like the idea of spending extensive time with a LEO where they're trying to find any reason to take me in. "Have you been drinking" is never best responded with "I hav

        • by sowth (748135) *

          It is illegal when they claim it is against "national security" to take pictures. "National security" is a vague enough concept that they can claim just about anything is in the interest of "national security."

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

          That's the difference between what law enforcement says, and what the real law says. When a uniformed DHS officer is standing in front of you saying that you're endangering national security you have two choices. You can say "Sorry sir, I won't take any pictures and I will be leaving now.", or you can argue the point, end up in handcuffs and be taken away to jail so your lawyer can (hopefully) argue that there was nothing illegal about doing it. When the representative of the government says "It was fo

    • by JWSmythe (446288)

      ... did you happen to notice that there was a police car following the Google car? It was both Big Brother *AND* Google. Road blocks or no road blocks, Google is coming in with a police escort.

          Coming soon: Google House View - See the inside of every house.

      • The saddest thing is, the have been news about exactly that.
        Putting cameras in bars and people's homes. Naturally the 'foot in the door' is the 'stop crime blahblah' but what will stop them from going full monty?
        Ya know, it is just to protect the children against the NaziZeoniteIslamofashistCommunist threat.

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

          Ahhh, someone actually remembered the previous story. That's why I said it.

          In reality, we already have a look into quite a few homes. Look at all the places people post pictures of themselves at.

          Some people are kind enough to put wireless web cams in, on unsecured wireless networks. You can simply park in front of their house, and see inside. Some people use wireless cameras which simply broadcast out the signal if you have the appropriate receiver. Google Maps [google.com] is nice

    • by roman_mir (125474)

      Big Brother does not tolerate competition. It also does not like giving people ability to see what Big Brother sees, I wouldn't be surprised if they forbade Google from doing this altogether at some point.

    • by orasio (188021)

      In a country known for the government being big brother they are blocking streets so google can't take pictures? What?

      I don't know about you, but if I absolutely _had_ to choose someone to take pictures of me, I'd much rather prefer it was the government that I can hold accountable, instead of a multinational corporation. I'm intrigued about your reasoning, though.

    • by _Shad0w_ (127912)

      I believe the police have pointed out to people who suggest they're going to do that, that it would be a criminal offence. I think the offence is still called "Obstructing the Queen's Highway" or it might just be "Causing an Obstruction".

  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Monday April 26, 2010 @03:35PM (#31988080)
    The breaks the record held by Amadou Diallo, who was shot 41 times... by the NYPD.
  • How do we know that the “concerned” woman wasn’t following the street view car, rather than the other way ’round?

    In fact, it sort of sounds like that’s what happened... she followed the suspicious vehicle around for a while, and then she turns up in Google’s street view. Surprise!

  • by sunking2 (521698) on Monday April 26, 2010 @03:36PM (#31988094)
    All her neighbors now know she is the one who isn't cleaning up after her dog.
  • Wow, this must have really freaked her out. Not only the whole follow-her-around thing (which is just creepy enough to be hilarious), but imagine if she did a search and found her own likeness time after time.

    This should be done more often as a very excellent prank. Bonus points if you catch someone doing something embarrassing.
    • by gooman (709147)

      Bonus points if you catch someone doing something embarrassing.

      I thought that was what YouTube was for.

  • I don't know what police cars look like in UK, but the car behind google "might" be a cop car. If that's the case, maybe he was going slow to avoid getting pulled over?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by clone53421 (1310749)

      It is a police car. And “Google Street View Shoots Police Car 43 Times” would be equally amusing, IMHO.

  • you're doing it wrong
  • This biker got photographed at least 53 times. [google.com]

    (Although he might have been aware of that...)
  • I know others (Score:3, Informative)

    by nuggz (69912) on Monday April 26, 2010 @05:28PM (#31989400) Homepage

    Happened to a few people I know, not surprising, the same vehicle drives several nearby streets throughout the day.
    If it's a nice day, and you're running around, you're likely to get a few photos taken.

  • Smiling at everybody she sees

    Everyone Knows It's Wendy

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NobLudmMRSU [youtube.com]

  • While it's possible that the photographing vehicle was "stalking" her, I find it just as likely that she was walking alongside the vehicle. Otherwise, how could you explain that this poor old lady happened to be in 43 different locations that the vehicle wanted to record?? 43 pics of the front of her house? Unlikely.
  • She will soon be selling an SVO service. Search Vehicle Optimization.
  • I guess if you count all the photos at each location, you might get 43, but I can see the lady and her dog from only 5 locations. Start at Anonymous Coward's Direct Link [google.com], back up a couple of steps, go north on Cooks road, rotating to look south, and back up a couple more steps. The cop car keeps following for a little while, but the lady disappears.

  • She's slow.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...