Google Sightseeing takes you on tour of the world as seen from satellite, using the free Google Earth program, or Google Maps in your web browser. Each weekday your guides James and Alex present new weird and wonderful sights as suggested by readers.
I wonder how these girls feel about being half naked for all the world to see on Google Street View?
Does anyone know who they are?
Update: I’ve just realised that for most of these Street View sights, you can move down the street a little and change your perspective on things.
This form will auto-link URLs or you can use simple HTML, <a href="http://googlesightseeing.com">Like this</a>.
Link to specific places either as a Google Maps page or a decimal latitude and longitude written like this: lat/lng:55.949400,-3.200000.
If you've found an unrelated sight that you think should be posted in its own entry then use the suggestion form!
This sort of stuff should probably be censored, for the girls sake, not the viewer
Why censor? They didn’t mind sunbathing with bikinis in the first place.
Yah, why censor, they’re out in public view already.
I’d be quietly confident if they thought that a couple of million people would be passing by looking at them they’d have went elsewhere to sunbathe.
I was referring to my comment on the Vegas billboard censorship rather than this particular picture, what i should have said is “This is the sort of stuff that should probably be censored rather than the billboards in Vegas, for the girls sake, not the viewer”
What’s the cutoff, Chet? They’re in plain view, and people are walking right by them. Are you saying that just because many more might see them, that alone would convince them to go elsewhere?
If they were in a semisecluded area in which people on the ground couldn’t see, that’d be different. It’s not as if Google has a camera in the girls’ bathroom.
They’re not half naked , they’re just half dressed … I’m disappointed !!
Dan: It’s not as if Google has a camera in the girls’ bathroom.
- that we know of
(gVoyeur beta?)
Seriously. Google’s isn’t the only camera looking at them. And Google’s plans for the photo are benign. There’s probably some security guard looking at park camera footage with less G-Rated thoughts.
People are on camera all the time. It’s the danger of going out in public.
I dont know!
I spend all day trawling the internet for pictures of naked ladies and come on GSS as a bit of ‘intellectual’ relief. And what do i find?
Nudity (well semi nudity)!
I’m appalled and shocked.
Is nothing sacred?
Oooooo…so what are the chances these ladies are still there? Id like to make a move.
That’s my wife and girlfriend, we go out there all the time, I was in the back getting something to drink.
Hey cool, neat trick:
If you hold down the left-click on an arrow, the view will continue to advance. BUT, if you then right-click, and release both, it will just drive down the street until it hits a dead end.
Sure, the flash menu pops up, but it’s not too obtrusive… An easy way to scan a large area in a little time…
Marty - Also, if you hold down command (control I assume) and press the left or right arrows, it rotates until you left go of command again.
Why is it that my home is the only city they decided to drive around in with 6 cameras mounted on the roof…… on a rainy day?
Denver is the only city that has grey angry looking clouds, in every picture. arrrrg
They are not half naked they are 90% naked.
…or 10% dressed!
Or for the love of Pete. You only have a right to privacy where privacy can be reasonably assumed. If you make an ass out of yourself in public and someone video tapes it and posts it on the internet, there is no legal recourse - you shouldn’t be making an ass of yourself in public. Make an ass of yourself in your private residence instead.
Likewise, if you don’t want people ogling your mostly bare skin, don’t go around scantily clad in public.
How ironic that they are on Escondido Road. Escondido means hidden in Spanish.
Can you recognize them?
photo 1 - photo 2 - photo 3
It doesn’t show their face so that’s kind of private
These girls have been around a while on the internet. and they may or may not be from anywhere near Cal. And you don’t have to look twice.
So if some sad old sod was standing in the park videoing the girls - would he be arrested ? beaten up ? sued by the girls ? Maybe all three. Hey but it’s only the google guys so it must be OK!
Probably, most “shocked” reactions are from the USA? In most European countries, the human body is quite accepted.
Nice photo shots!!
honestly folks in the US are SOOOOO uptight when it comes to showing a little bit of skin…heaven forbid, but shoe EXTREME violence on TV and video games & its all good. Seriously folks, grow up.
Imagine you are lying sunbathing in a public place and some one wanders up with a camera and starts taking photographs of you and then says that they are going to be displayed on a popular web site surrounded by paid for ads for local businesses.
Would you feel abused?
…guess you have to be from US to find these girls anything near nude…
Instead of spending resources on removing these girls, instead try to get more girls to be there. In that way there will be less attention on the individual girls
The problem is not Google or the “nude” people, but people that feel a need to make negative responds when shown naked bodies (or any degree of not completely covered up individuals).
/Nicolair
I think this is becoming more real now.Street view is essential to all and every person and I commend it.
They have tops on…. when zoomed in, you can see them tied on their backs.
These girls go to Stanford! Escondido is a road that runs right down the middle of Stanford’s campus. Judging by the location here, I can tell which dorm they’re near and everything. Ay carumba, this is creepy shit.
Nobody scrolled just a little further down?
Here are both sat up, still apparently topless
Well, that was very difficult to spot…
I know this may be a little over the head of the average “netizen” and based on previous comments here, probably waaaay to complicated, but the US Supreme Court has made several rulings based on what is called, “reasonable expectation of privacy” If you look at the link in the post above (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&q=googleplex&sll=37.448697,-120.948486&sspn=2.94791,5.141602&ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.42428,-122.16063&cbp=1,319.6953192450783,0.557816774776505,3&gl=us&hl=en&ll=37.424852,-122.160764&spn=0.00112,0.00294&z=19)
you can see that there is another woman about 50 feet behind them and what looks like 4 guys playing basketball another 100 feet past that. If they are topless (which I doubt) then there is no invasion of privacy since they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
The same thing goes for someone caught taking a leak on a wall or doing something stupid, especially on Street view. While a Sat image might catch someone in a backyard that might be fenced (where there is an expectation of privacy) StreetView captures images from street level, or almost eye level view, so that someone sunbathing in plain view, pissing on a fence or smoking outside their store has no “reasonable right of privacy”
we are so prudish in the states, see one naked body seen them all- besides a girls body is so beautiful to look at, and to touch ,soft and silky…let those alone that want to get naked in public, men walk around with out shirts and speedos so….im all for nakedness anytime anywhere..except church
Google Gone Wild!
So where are the pictures of O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife’s demise. Or didn’t we have satalites back then?
Here’s the problem as I see it:
1) Not EVERYONE is ashamed to be seen in a bathing suit. So why assume that these women think they’re “ulgy” and want to be censored, just because you think that way about yourself?
2) Google is mapping the United States. If you eliminate bathing suits, you eliminate most of the the entire coastal roadway system of California, Texas, Florida and Hawaii.
3) What’s so bad about bathing suits? Where are you people typing your replies from? Islamabad? Lighten up a little.