Google Street View is the most audacious data-gathering project ever

Google Street View is an extraordinarily expensive project for a company which normally deals with razor-slim margins. It involves building customised cars, shipping them all over the world, and then hiring drivers to patrol the roads for hours on end.

The eventual plan is to map every street they can (and they mean every - Jon Rafman's 9-eyes is a wonderful collection of weirder pictures taken), an extraordinary project which certainly goes far beyond what makes economic sense. While Street View images of, for example, London's Oxford Street are likely to be regularly checked and probably easily monetiseable, it's hard to imagine what use images of Manitoba, Canada's highway 39 are, beyond bragging rights for the company.

But Adrian Holovaty suggests one reason why Google may have wanted to carry the project to its conclusion: it's nascent driverless car project. Holovaty writes:

Now, I’m realizing the biggest Street View data coup of all: those vehicles are gathering the ultimate training set for driverless cars.

I’m sure this is obvious to people who have followed it more closely, but the realization has really blown my mind. With the goal of photographing and mapping every street in the world, Street View cars must encounter every possible road situation, sort of by definition. The more situations the driverless car knows about, the better the training data, the better the machine-learning algorithms can perform, the more likely it is that the driverless car will work. Brilliant.

Google is, first and foremost, a company build around data-wrangling. Most of the data they get is provided by their users, but some, like the Street View corpus, they have to go out and get. And if they do, it's worth their while to work out as many ways of using that data as possible. The real question is whether they realised once they had all the information that they could use it to teach computers how to drive, or if this has been their cunning plan all along.

Thanks to Robin Sloan for the pointer.

A view from a Street View car, via

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.