Agents and homeowners have been taking photos of homes for sale for decades, and all sorts of private info has leaked this way. I’m in the industry on the tech side and I’ve seen photos of people naked in mirrors, signed documents, children, hobbies/interests, framed photos saying things like “Joseph Edward Smith - born Aug 6, 2010”, bills and more.
This technology makes it more likely for the volume of leaked data to increase, and the photo resolutions give more data per image, but agents have been trained to stage houses for a long time and should be expected to handle this. Blame the agent.
Although the tech certainly has room for improvement. All it takes is for someone to sue Zillow for exposing their private images online for automatic blurring technology to magically appear.
> All it takes is for someone to sue Zillow for exposing their private images online for automatic blurring technology to magically appear.
Honestly, I would expect such an event to lead to an indemnity clause magically appearing in their future contracts - it's the lowest effort option which gives sufficient defense.
Beyond assisting with contractual matters and negotiation, I feel this is the last value proposition of real estate agents.
We've had videos and virtual tours for a long time. I no longer need someone to show me around a physical space.
Making the process of searching for - and hopefully purchasing - your "dream home" as smooth and safe as possible is arguably the best way for these agents to retain their jobs as we enter an age where much of what they do can be automated.
They should've but the tech part is relevant. Obvious bad actors that are snooping around in open houses are certainly an issue but can be remediated a lot easier - you can kick those visitors out and bar folks with a history of snooping from entry - both of which work relatively well on the local level.
I think tech is specifically relevant here since this is another clear example of scaling up beyond cultural norms using technology causing emergent security issues - the issues were present all along but there were some systems in place to limit how harmful they could be and technology has released us from those limits.
It's exactly the same as when they used to take internal photos of properties, only you can zoom and move around now in better detail.
When we had ours done last year, I treated it the same as when we had the internal photos done - tidy everything up, put identifiable documents away, strategically place items over the logos/names of things.
I did notice that when we went to view some properties in person, that there were personal items out on display - but the photos online were clear of anything - so it's more down to the homeowner than anyone else.
The guide we got before any photos etc clearly stated to put away anything you didn't want others to see, both for in person and for online.
"The BBC has alerted the Information Commissioner's Office." - I'm not sure why? If the homeowner missed it, and didn't follow instructions to remove before the photos, then I'm not sure that it is the fault of the agent at all.
Edit - This is from the guide we got sent after a call discussing the same things:
- The entirety of your home will be captured by the tour, and every detail will be picked up – so remove anything you don’t want seen, i.e., family photographs, clutter or boxes
- Don’t leave pictures, portraits or drawings up that you don’t wish to be photographed (typically, portrait images where the person would be recognisable)
- Don’t leave valuables and possessions in sight which you don’t want others to see
- Please note: The technology does not allow for edits or retakes, so please ensure your home is exactly how you want it to be seen!
Maybe put a QR code on your door and see where you get hits from?
Alternatively set up a honeypot by gluing a fake bill to your mailbox as if it's a letter dangling out with some personal information on the envelope? It'd be interesting to see if anyone is running any automatic extraction over pictures of mailboxes.
> A good example of how the internet is not compareable to real life. Whenever someone handwaves "but that's always happened"
> In person, the chance of a local person traveling to your house to photograph a cheque is non-existent.
This is the digital version of an open house. The same mitigation that prevents this behavior from happening in real life (i.e. setting up the house in a way where guests can't see your personal info) would have fixed the problem here.
I can personally guarantee that criminals target physical "real life" open houses too, as it happened to someone I know. I suppose the internet does make it lower effort to exploit (especially from across the world), but it's at least 'comparable' in my opinion.
"clues about their political views based on their choices of reading material"
Interesting. Millions of people have work-related zoom meetings (or publicly posted webinars) while sitting in front of their bookshelves. Many people don't have a problem with that. Some of those books might even be strategically placed so that they are in clear view. You can discern a little about someone's interests by what's on their bookshelves, but perhaps not always accurately.
I wonder how people feel about displaying the contents of their bookshelf online while onscreen? I'm guessing for most people it's not a concern.
Here's Bret Victor's bookshelf from 2015 which we posted himself on his website. Click to zoom: http://worrydream.com/Shelf2015/
>Some of those books might even be strategically placed so that they are in clear view. You can discern a little about someone's interests by what's on their bookshelves, but perhaps not always accurately.
That was VERY obvious with public figures during the last year. I actually laughed a few times at the dichotomy of either partially empty shelves with these weird "poignant" books on prominent display. I usually pondered if they had actually read some of them...
My (now-deceased) stepfather was Jewish and a historian. He focused on WWII and the US Civil War. When he and my mom went to sell their house about 12 years ago, the listing agent walked through and said, "Oh, you should probably clear out the bookcase a bit."
My stepfather had more than an entire shelf of books on Hitler in the living room as he had been working on an article about him.
> I wonder how people feel about displaying the contents of their bookshelf online while onscreen? I'm guessing for most people it's not a concern.
While many people don't go around advertising their interests, political affiliation, etc - I doubt they would be too worried if you could guess it from their bookcase. Most people don't consider it particularly private information in my experience.
My workplace has specific training to use the blurring feature of the conferencing app we use, specifically for security/privacy reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that other work places do the same thing.
This sucks. Just because I read or own a book does not mean I agree with what's written inside it. You can never learn things you don't agree with if you won't even read them or if people will assume you believe everything in a book you read.
A neighbor listed their house, then watched through their many home cams as people came for viewings.
As they walked through the house she looked them up on social media, made easier having actually seen them to match faces to names.
Then start ranking prospective buyers by their social media profiles, and behavior in her house as they looked around. The cams have mics so she could hear comments too.
Overall was pretty horrific to see how she profiled people.
What's obnoxious is there's no interface to go in and blur the photos after they're taken. The software just isn't built for it; it's meant for agents to operate with little to no technical knowledge.
If ever there was a job for ML. It seems like text detection and a classifier of what the text is, then blur that part of the photo.
Same with brand names, art and logos in TV shows.
When visiting the link to the realtor's platform you are greeted by that 3d model. Some faces are blurred out, but mostly on paintings and some statues so I think the realtors just use automation and call it done.
Searching for the name in the article confirms she is the partner of a major news anchor in Montreal Qc. and that this is their house.
I understand public figures need their privacy but obscurity shouldn't be solely relied on, especially if you have a newspaper advertising your house without saying it is your house.
How van you even sell a house like this? The pictures are a giant mess. In my country you'd clean up the whole house, remove anything personal and get a professional photographer to take pretty photos.
Why would you go through the trouble of making such an expensive and fancy 3d rendering but not through the trouble of cleaning the house a bit. I think these people have their priorities wrong.
Are you sure it’s so expensive? Not sure how mature the technology is, but I imagine you could do it by just hauling around a tripod with a special camera. If so, it would be a lot less effort than a complete tidying up.
Redfin did one of those when I sold my house and the agent was really good about telling me what to move... including personal pictures off the walls and staying away from the windows when they were doing the outside pictures, etc...
[+] [-] ekrebs|5 years ago|reply
This technology makes it more likely for the volume of leaked data to increase, and the photo resolutions give more data per image, but agents have been trained to stage houses for a long time and should be expected to handle this. Blame the agent.
Although the tech certainly has room for improvement. All it takes is for someone to sue Zillow for exposing their private images online for automatic blurring technology to magically appear.
[+] [-] danielbarla|5 years ago|reply
Honestly, I would expect such an event to lead to an indemnity clause magically appearing in their future contracts - it's the lowest effort option which gives sufficient defense.
[+] [-] LordOfWolves|5 years ago|reply
We've had videos and virtual tours for a long time. I no longer need someone to show me around a physical space.
Making the process of searching for - and hopefully purchasing - your "dream home" as smooth and safe as possible is arguably the best way for these agents to retain their jobs as we enter an age where much of what they do can be automated.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cortesoft|5 years ago|reply
The high tech part seems not really related. The same thing would have happened with plain photos, or an in person open house.
[+] [-] munk-a|5 years ago|reply
I think tech is specifically relevant here since this is another clear example of scaling up beyond cultural norms using technology causing emergent security issues - the issues were present all along but there were some systems in place to limit how harmful they could be and technology has released us from those limits.
[+] [-] bennyp101|5 years ago|reply
When we had ours done last year, I treated it the same as when we had the internal photos done - tidy everything up, put identifiable documents away, strategically place items over the logos/names of things.
I did notice that when we went to view some properties in person, that there were personal items out on display - but the photos online were clear of anything - so it's more down to the homeowner than anyone else.
The guide we got before any photos etc clearly stated to put away anything you didn't want others to see, both for in person and for online.
"The BBC has alerted the Information Commissioner's Office." - I'm not sure why? If the homeowner missed it, and didn't follow instructions to remove before the photos, then I'm not sure that it is the fault of the agent at all.
Edit - This is from the guide we got sent after a call discussing the same things:
- The entirety of your home will be captured by the tour, and every detail will be picked up – so remove anything you don’t want seen, i.e., family photographs, clutter or boxes - Don’t leave pictures, portraits or drawings up that you don’t wish to be photographed (typically, portrait images where the person would be recognisable) - Don’t leave valuables and possessions in sight which you don’t want others to see - Please note: The technology does not allow for edits or retakes, so please ensure your home is exactly how you want it to be seen!
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aaron695|5 years ago|reply
In person, the chance of a local person traveling to your house to photograph a cheque is non-existent.
On the internet you can script a search of all homes. Its all about the ability to search quickly.
I see companies are getting photos of my front door now when packages get delivered. I wonder what we can get from that....
[+] [-] munk-a|5 years ago|reply
Alternatively set up a honeypot by gluing a fake bill to your mailbox as if it's a letter dangling out with some personal information on the envelope? It'd be interesting to see if anyone is running any automatic extraction over pictures of mailboxes.
[+] [-] cmeacham98|5 years ago|reply
> In person, the chance of a local person traveling to your house to photograph a cheque is non-existent.
This is the digital version of an open house. The same mitigation that prevents this behavior from happening in real life (i.e. setting up the house in a way where guests can't see your personal info) would have fixed the problem here.
I can personally guarantee that criminals target physical "real life" open houses too, as it happened to someone I know. I suppose the internet does make it lower effort to exploit (especially from across the world), but it's at least 'comparable' in my opinion.
[+] [-] azinman2|5 years ago|reply
Always the de facto statement from the people that leak your data. I’d love to see a criminal say to the judge “I take your laws very seriously.”
[+] [-] open-source-ux|5 years ago|reply
Interesting. Millions of people have work-related zoom meetings (or publicly posted webinars) while sitting in front of their bookshelves. Many people don't have a problem with that. Some of those books might even be strategically placed so that they are in clear view. You can discern a little about someone's interests by what's on their bookshelves, but perhaps not always accurately.
I wonder how people feel about displaying the contents of their bookshelf online while onscreen? I'm guessing for most people it's not a concern.
Here's Bret Victor's bookshelf from 2015 which we posted himself on his website. Click to zoom: http://worrydream.com/Shelf2015/
[+] [-] vmception|5 years ago|reply
Glad I never got into bookshelves (and that nobody of child bearing age judges people on the lack of physically displayed books in their dwelling)
[+] [-] smthngwitty|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.booksbythefoot.com/
[+] [-] croutonwagon|5 years ago|reply
That was VERY obvious with public figures during the last year. I actually laughed a few times at the dichotomy of either partially empty shelves with these weird "poignant" books on prominent display. I usually pondered if they had actually read some of them...
[+] [-] stordoff|5 years ago|reply
And perhaps learn a little more than you expected: https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc-wales-today-viewers-... (somewhat NSFW)
> Some of those books might even be strategically placed so that they are in clear view.
Or just not even bother with the books in the first place: https://www.indy100.com/news/trump-erin-elmore-bookcase-sky-...
[+] [-] sib|5 years ago|reply
My stepfather had more than an entire shelf of books on Hitler in the living room as he had been working on an article about him.
Needless to say, my stepdad took the hint.
[+] [-] cmeacham98|5 years ago|reply
While many people don't go around advertising their interests, political affiliation, etc - I doubt they would be too worried if you could guess it from their bookcase. Most people don't consider it particularly private information in my experience.
[+] [-] bentcorner|5 years ago|reply
My workplace has specific training to use the blurring feature of the conferencing app we use, specifically for security/privacy reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that other work places do the same thing.
[+] [-] self_buddliea|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spitfire|5 years ago|reply
This is exactly why I put Karl Marx next to F a Hayek. It's like a social logic bomb.
[+] [-] notsureaboutpg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnbear|5 years ago|reply
A neighbor listed their house, then watched through their many home cams as people came for viewings.
As they walked through the house she looked them up on social media, made easier having actually seen them to match faces to names.
Then start ranking prospective buyers by their social media profiles, and behavior in her house as they looked around. The cams have mics so she could hear comments too.
Overall was pretty horrific to see how she profiled people.
[+] [-] Slippery_John|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] myself248|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigmattystyles|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matbilodeau|5 years ago|reply
When visiting the link to the realtor's platform you are greeted by that 3d model. Some faces are blurred out, but mostly on paintings and some statues so I think the realtors just use automation and call it done.
Visiting the study, I zoomed in on a cabinet with trophies and awards. Turns out you can read the name of that person on some awards, view his face on a photograph. https://www.viacapitalevendu.com/montreal-ville-marie-montre...
Searching for the name in the article confirms she is the partner of a major news anchor in Montreal Qc. and that this is their house.
I understand public figures need their privacy but obscurity shouldn't be solely relied on, especially if you have a newspaper advertising your house without saying it is your house.
[+] [-] Avalaxy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teekert|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diggernet|5 years ago|reply
https://matterport.com/3d-camera-app-iphone
[+] [-] paxys|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Black101|5 years ago|reply