Google 'online shopping tool for thieves' blamed over burglaries

Gordon Rayner is holding the application responsible for three raids at his house in Bradford last month, claiming thieves used the application, which allows people to look at a 360 degree view of Britain's streets, as an "online shopping" tool.

Although two of the incidents at the 54-year-old's house were unsuccessful, thieves did make off with a 350 bike in the third.

The Street View image of Mr Rayner's house was taken when he had his garage door open, affording a full view of the bike as well as a freezer, tumble dryer and tools stored inside.

The accusations come in the same week rural business leaders in Yorkshire said the video technology used by Google Street View – recorded by a car with a specially designed camera on the roof – had been straying on to private property around Yorkshire.

Bosses at the Country Land and Business Association said the internet giant could find itself guilty of trespassing and also voiced fears over the effect the photography would have on crime.

Mr Rayner said: "I remember the Google van coming round to take pictures because I was standing outside and pressure washing my drive at the time.

"I stood and looked at it but didn't think much of it at the time so I put it to the back of my mind. I never thought it would be that intrusive and I assumed they would block everything out, especially in the garage.

"I've lived at this address for eight years and never had any trouble prior to that.

"It was only when I went and checked my computer that I saw you could see absolutely everything in the garage."

The theft of the mountain bike was a particularly bitter pill for Mr Rayner to swallow as it had been given to him as a present from his father, who had completed a charity bike ride on it in aid of a soldier's charity just before it was taken in honour of his great-nephew who was killed in Afghanistan.

"I think what Google have done is totally out of order, " Mr Rayner said. "Some crooks could be sitting at home on the internet saying 'oh look there's a dryer in there'

"Then they could be down the pub asking their mates 'what do you want? I can get you this and this'. It is like shopping on-line for thieves."

Meanwhile the CLA's regional director for Yorkshire, Dorothy Fairburn, also voiced her concerns, saying: "We know that Google camera cars are legally mapping the region. Our only concern is that they might, unwittingly, film along private roads.

"Some private drives are not always obviously marked, so we remind Google camera car operators to be vigilant when filming in the more rural parts of our region."

The CLA is advising members they can go to the Street View website to flag images for removal if they are unhappy with them.

A Google spokeswoman said the company had agreed to blur or rub out images of people or houses on request. The spokeswoman said: "The imagery on Street View is no different to what anyone could readily capture or see by travelling down the street themselves.

"We've now launched Street View in around 20 countries and nowhere has there been any increase in crime as a result."

She was not aware of any specific complaints from landowners having their land trespassed upon by the camera car.

"It is our policy to only gather images from public roads, and our drivers are trained to follow this policy," she said.

"When we learn that imagery may have been mistakenly gathered against our policy, we act quickly to remove such imagery. In fact, we remove images even where there is not a clear policy violation."

Controversy at click of a mouse

Google Street View made headlines as soon as it was launched in the UK.

Images of a man walking out of a sex shop, another being sick in a street and of Oasis frontman Liam Gallagher drinking in a pub immediately raised issues and concerns regarding privacy.

Captured by a camera mounted on a car roof it allowed web users to view a 360 degree image of most streets in the country from their own living room.

Privacy campaigners tried to take the issue up with the relevant authorities but a ruling from the Information Commissioner stipulated the website was not infringing any laws.