That's right Google. You better run.
-
You are like the caring mother that says "make sure you wear fresh underwear, because you could get in an accident, and the guy gluing your leg back on could see some skid marks, which would be embarassing". Privacy isn't binary. While there is a chance a stranger takes a snapshot while you pee in your garden, and shows these pictures to his friends, one of them being your boss, that chance is limited by two factors: number of people taking snapshot of your street, and the number of people looking at these snapshots that might potentially recognize you. The product of these is usually tiny - a risk most people are willing to take. Google street view changes two aspects of that: exposure and persistence. It is well known that being watched changes behavior of humans (incidentally, even a mirror in your field of view can do that). Virtuall all people make a distinction between "private" and "public". Virtually all people create different "representations" in different scenarios. Going to the theater, I dress and behave differently than going to the mall. When applying for a job I dress and behave differently than when I go to a concert. I don't care whether you consider this "good" or "bad". I know that street view is just public exposure of a trend that is likely unstoppable. Change happens. But wiht all that, one question remains: Should a for-profit company be allowed to universally and unilaterally change norms of society? Or should I have the freedom to ban google from my life?
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server. -
You are like the caring mother that says "make sure you wear fresh underwear, because you could get in an accident, and the guy gluing your leg back on could see some skid marks, which would be embarassing". Privacy isn't binary. While there is a chance a stranger takes a snapshot while you pee in your garden, and shows these pictures to his friends, one of them being your boss, that chance is limited by two factors: number of people taking snapshot of your street, and the number of people looking at these snapshots that might potentially recognize you. The product of these is usually tiny - a risk most people are willing to take. Google street view changes two aspects of that: exposure and persistence. It is well known that being watched changes behavior of humans (incidentally, even a mirror in your field of view can do that). Virtuall all people make a distinction between "private" and "public". Virtually all people create different "representations" in different scenarios. Going to the theater, I dress and behave differently than going to the mall. When applying for a job I dress and behave differently than when I go to a concert. I don't care whether you consider this "good" or "bad". I know that street view is just public exposure of a trend that is likely unstoppable. Change happens. But wiht all that, one question remains: Should a for-profit company be allowed to universally and unilaterally change norms of society? Or should I have the freedom to ban google from my life?
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.The failure of your argument is its perspective. This is not about privacy, it's about what should and should not be done in public -- not in private; in public. What the anti street-view evangelists appear to be saying is that one of the things that should not be allowed in public is the taking of photographs -- in public places, of streets. This is lunacy. Don't try to defend it with talk of privacy, because *in public* (do try to remember that phrase) there is no privacy. If I want to take out my camera and snap a picture, I damned well will. If you *happen to be* doing something bad/illegal/stupid while I'm taking that picture, then more fool you. And note that I'm not talking about intentionally taking pictures of you doing something bad/illegal/stupid. It's not my fault if you're doing something bad/illegal/stupid in my photograph, so don't try to penalise me for it -- you're the one doing something bad/illegal/stupid; I'm just expressing my legal right to take a picture *in public*. You do not have a legal right to do bad or illegal things in public (nor in private, for that matter), and should keep your stupid things private. So do not attack my (and Google's) legal right to do something that is perfectly legal by saying that it infringes your non-legal non-right to do bad/illegal/stupid things.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
Wow. Must be really difficult to run backward in frogman gear.
it's easier than running forward!
Watched code never compiles.
You're right! That's two perspective errors in the same thread!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
The failure of your argument is its perspective. This is not about privacy, it's about what should and should not be done in public -- not in private; in public. What the anti street-view evangelists appear to be saying is that one of the things that should not be allowed in public is the taking of photographs -- in public places, of streets. This is lunacy. Don't try to defend it with talk of privacy, because *in public* (do try to remember that phrase) there is no privacy. If I want to take out my camera and snap a picture, I damned well will. If you *happen to be* doing something bad/illegal/stupid while I'm taking that picture, then more fool you. And note that I'm not talking about intentionally taking pictures of you doing something bad/illegal/stupid. It's not my fault if you're doing something bad/illegal/stupid in my photograph, so don't try to penalise me for it -- you're the one doing something bad/illegal/stupid; I'm just expressing my legal right to take a picture *in public*. You do not have a legal right to do bad or illegal things in public (nor in private, for that matter), and should keep your stupid things private. So do not attack my (and Google's) legal right to do something that is perfectly legal by saying that it infringes your non-legal non-right to do bad/illegal/stupid things.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark Wallace wrote:
So do not attack my (and Google's) legal right to do something that is perfectly legal by saying that it infringes your non-legal non-right to do bad/illegal/stupid things.
Please do not assume that the laws governing your particular country also apply to all other countries. It is by no means certain that what google is doing is legal in all countries.
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
So do not attack my (and Google's) legal right to do something that is perfectly legal by saying that it infringes your non-legal non-right to do bad/illegal/stupid things.
Please do not assume that the laws governing your particular country also apply to all other countries. It is by no means certain that what google is doing is legal in all countries.
That's why, as far as I know, they have to get clearance for making pictures for street-view from every country. Otherwise, they can't/won't add those countries to street-view. So, if you have street-view possibilities on google map for a certain country, the making of pictures in public is allowed by law.
Nah... What's up, Doc? CCC's solved : 1 If a bus station is where a bus stops, and a train station is where a train stops, why do I have a work station on my desk?
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
So do not attack my (and Google's) legal right to do something that is perfectly legal by saying that it infringes your non-legal non-right to do bad/illegal/stupid things.
Please do not assume that the laws governing your particular country also apply to all other countries. It is by no means certain that what google is doing is legal in all countries.
Jakob Olsen wrote:
Please do not assume that the laws governing your particular country also apply to all other countries. It is by no means certain that what google is doing is legal in all countries.
That could be a new survey: "Can you name a country where taking a photograph in a public street, where there are no top-secret military installations, is illegal?" Mark me down as a "No" (and my wife is Chinese). If laws are passed against street view, they will apply to all photographs taken by everyone. Anyone who wants to can stay on that bandwagon as long as they like, as long as they're aware that it's madness. Choice 1: Don't do anything in public that you wouldn't want to be photographed doing. Choice 2: Ban all use of cameras in public. Here's my house[^]. You want to walk past it in real life, feel free. You want to "walk" past it on Google street view, feel free. You are not infringing my rights or my privacy by looking at the outside of my house from the street -- the house is right there in public, so anyone and everyone is allowed to see it and take pictures of it. I would have to be insane to demand otherwise. You will not see me p1ssing in the garden, however, whether you're there in reality or in street view, because I do not p1ss in my garden -- there are toilets just through the door, so why should I commit the criminal offence of indecent exposure? Maybe someone who does commit such criminal offences (there's a school for young children, just around the corner, so indecent exposure is a really stupid idea, as well as being illegal) *should* be yet further exposed, so that his neighbours (and the school authorities) will be aware of it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Jakob Olsen wrote:
Please do not assume that the laws governing your particular country also apply to all other countries. It is by no means certain that what google is doing is legal in all countries.
That could be a new survey: "Can you name a country where taking a photograph in a public street, where there are no top-secret military installations, is illegal?" Mark me down as a "No" (and my wife is Chinese). If laws are passed against street view, they will apply to all photographs taken by everyone. Anyone who wants to can stay on that bandwagon as long as they like, as long as they're aware that it's madness. Choice 1: Don't do anything in public that you wouldn't want to be photographed doing. Choice 2: Ban all use of cameras in public. Here's my house[^]. You want to walk past it in real life, feel free. You want to "walk" past it on Google street view, feel free. You are not infringing my rights or my privacy by looking at the outside of my house from the street -- the house is right there in public, so anyone and everyone is allowed to see it and take pictures of it. I would have to be insane to demand otherwise. You will not see me p1ssing in the garden, however, whether you're there in reality or in street view, because I do not p1ss in my garden -- there are toilets just through the door, so why should I commit the criminal offence of indecent exposure? Maybe someone who does commit such criminal offences (there's a school for young children, just around the corner, so indecent exposure is a really stupid idea, as well as being illegal) *should* be yet further exposed, so that his neighbours (and the school authorities) will be aware of it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark Wallace wrote:
"Can you name a country where taking a photograph in a public street, where there are no top-secret military installations, is illegal?"
Well actually.... I may have to name Denmark then. There has been some discussion as to the legallity of Street View in Denmark recently, and several law-experts have stated that it probably isn't. Google has not done anything to clear the legality, other than repeatedly stating that it is completely legal. That doesn't actually make it legal though. It is the act of deliberately taking pictures of people in places that are not freely available that is illegal. Mounting a camera on top of a car and driving slowly past someones house while taking pictures of them over their hedge - And posting it on the internet afterwards - is seen by many as a clear violation of that law.
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
"Can you name a country where taking a photograph in a public street, where there are no top-secret military installations, is illegal?"
Well actually.... I may have to name Denmark then. There has been some discussion as to the legallity of Street View in Denmark recently, and several law-experts have stated that it probably isn't. Google has not done anything to clear the legality, other than repeatedly stating that it is completely legal. That doesn't actually make it legal though. It is the act of deliberately taking pictures of people in places that are not freely available that is illegal. Mounting a camera on top of a car and driving slowly past someones house while taking pictures of them over their hedge - And posting it on the internet afterwards - is seen by many as a clear violation of that law.
Jakob Olsen wrote:
It is the act of deliberately taking pictures of people in places that are not freely available that is illegal.Mounting a camera on top of a car and driving slowly past someones house while taking pictures of them over their hedge - And posting it on the internet afterwards - is seen by many as a clear violation of that law.
Then a definition of "freely available" is needed (although a quick search -- using Bing, in case of bias -- shows that it's not lawmakers who are questioning the legality of it, just bloggers and typical on-line idiots such like). I saw the Google car, as it did my town. The camera is only a little above what I would call eye-level (pictures I've seen of the car make it look higher), so anyone walking past someone's house will see the same things over the same hedges, and no-one would question their right to take a picture of what is "freely visible". A major point regarding visibility is that the Google car is exceedingly visible, so if someone is absolutely determined to p1ss in his garden, he can just hold it in for a few moments, until the car has passed by.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
The failure of your argument is its perspective. This is not about privacy, it's about what should and should not be done in public -- not in private; in public. What the anti street-view evangelists appear to be saying is that one of the things that should not be allowed in public is the taking of photographs -- in public places, of streets. This is lunacy. Don't try to defend it with talk of privacy, because *in public* (do try to remember that phrase) there is no privacy. If I want to take out my camera and snap a picture, I damned well will. If you *happen to be* doing something bad/illegal/stupid while I'm taking that picture, then more fool you. And note that I'm not talking about intentionally taking pictures of you doing something bad/illegal/stupid. It's not my fault if you're doing something bad/illegal/stupid in my photograph, so don't try to penalise me for it -- you're the one doing something bad/illegal/stupid; I'm just expressing my legal right to take a picture *in public*. You do not have a legal right to do bad or illegal things in public (nor in private, for that matter), and should keep your stupid things private. So do not attack my (and Google's) legal right to do something that is perfectly legal by saying that it infringes your non-legal non-right to do bad/illegal/stupid things.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
OK, more in detail: It's not just Street View Fanbois against Criminal Privacy Lunatics. "If you are not for us, you are against us" is sooooo last decade. Private vs. Public isn't binary - it isn't "totally one" or "totally the other". For many (most?) people it's not even a single axis. GSV fundamentally changes the level of privacy we have in many locations. People move to the countryside because they prefer the less anonymous and less public environment. GSV fundamentally limits our choice. Yes, you have the legal right to photograph me in a public place. Where did I "attack" that right? But do you decline me the chance to politely ask you to stop? Are you the type of guy who is incapable of respecting that? Do you expect the law to make every "can/cannot" decision for you? In the eastern part of Germany there are traditionally many nude beaches. There is one single rule: If you go there, you go nude. There is no law about that. Of course there are arguments about where the textile beach ends and the nude beach starts - but only where this didnÄt settle, an official, legally binding ruling was seeked.
Mark Wallace wrote:
infringes your non-legal non-right to do bad/illegal/stupid things.
I DO have the legal right to do stupid and bad things, that's a fundamental achievement of western civilization. If I find a way to get my hands on yoru savings that is not illegal, bad for you. Here, I am defending your right to say "please don't", and reinforcing my moral obligation to respect that. If we fail, we need a lawyer. For my part, I'd prefer to live in a world with less, rather than more of that.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server. -
Jakob Olsen wrote:
Please do not assume that the laws governing your particular country also apply to all other countries. It is by no means certain that what google is doing is legal in all countries.
That could be a new survey: "Can you name a country where taking a photograph in a public street, where there are no top-secret military installations, is illegal?" Mark me down as a "No" (and my wife is Chinese). If laws are passed against street view, they will apply to all photographs taken by everyone. Anyone who wants to can stay on that bandwagon as long as they like, as long as they're aware that it's madness. Choice 1: Don't do anything in public that you wouldn't want to be photographed doing. Choice 2: Ban all use of cameras in public. Here's my house[^]. You want to walk past it in real life, feel free. You want to "walk" past it on Google street view, feel free. You are not infringing my rights or my privacy by looking at the outside of my house from the street -- the house is right there in public, so anyone and everyone is allowed to see it and take pictures of it. I would have to be insane to demand otherwise. You will not see me p1ssing in the garden, however, whether you're there in reality or in street view, because I do not p1ss in my garden -- there are toilets just through the door, so why should I commit the criminal offence of indecent exposure? Maybe someone who does commit such criminal offences (there's a school for young children, just around the corner, so indecent exposure is a really stupid idea, as well as being illegal) *should* be yet further exposed, so that his neighbours (and the school authorities) will be aware of it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark Wallace wrote:
That could be a new survey: "Can you name a country where taking a photograph in a public street, where there are no top-secret military installations, is illegal?"
Quebec Canada. You can take pictures of people but you can't show them unless you have their permission. Google just added street views here but they are heavily edited with privacy software.
-
OK, more in detail: It's not just Street View Fanbois against Criminal Privacy Lunatics. "If you are not for us, you are against us" is sooooo last decade. Private vs. Public isn't binary - it isn't "totally one" or "totally the other". For many (most?) people it's not even a single axis. GSV fundamentally changes the level of privacy we have in many locations. People move to the countryside because they prefer the less anonymous and less public environment. GSV fundamentally limits our choice. Yes, you have the legal right to photograph me in a public place. Where did I "attack" that right? But do you decline me the chance to politely ask you to stop? Are you the type of guy who is incapable of respecting that? Do you expect the law to make every "can/cannot" decision for you? In the eastern part of Germany there are traditionally many nude beaches. There is one single rule: If you go there, you go nude. There is no law about that. Of course there are arguments about where the textile beach ends and the nude beach starts - but only where this didnÄt settle, an official, legally binding ruling was seeked.
Mark Wallace wrote:
infringes your non-legal non-right to do bad/illegal/stupid things.
I DO have the legal right to do stupid and bad things, that's a fundamental achievement of western civilization. If I find a way to get my hands on yoru savings that is not illegal, bad for you. Here, I am defending your right to say "please don't", and reinforcing my moral obligation to respect that. If we fail, we need a lawyer. For my part, I'd prefer to live in a world with less, rather than more of that.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.I'm quite sure that if you write Google and ask them to fuzzy up all or part of a picture of you or your property, they will, so that's that argument out of the way. But that's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with all this "WHAT GOOGLE IS DOING IS ILLEGAL!!!" crap. If you want to exercise your legal right to ask Google to cease and desist, carry on, but do not try to infringe the right of Google and everyone else to use a camera in a public place. - Taking photographs in a public place is not illegal. - Threatening behaviour with a deadly weapon (spearguns are designed and built to kill) is illegal. - Attempting to infringe or deny the legal rights of others is illegal. - Suborning others to commit criminal offences is illegal. I'll take photographs in any public place I damned well please; if someone tries to deny me that right, or threatens me with a deadly weapon, I'll have him arrested. Google is much nicer than I am; it lets them get away with it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
That could be a new survey: "Can you name a country where taking a photograph in a public street, where there are no top-secret military installations, is illegal?"
Quebec Canada. You can take pictures of people but you can't show them unless you have their permission. Google just added street views here but they are heavily edited with privacy software.
LenaBr wrote:
Google just added street views here but they are heavily edited with privacy software.
I think that faces are blurred out everywhere; I've never taken the time to look. But that makes sense, whether it's law or not. It's common decency to "anonymise" the people in the shots.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I'm quite sure that if you write Google and ask them to fuzzy up all or part of a picture of you or your property, they will, so that's that argument out of the way. But that's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with all this "WHAT GOOGLE IS DOING IS ILLEGAL!!!" crap. If you want to exercise your legal right to ask Google to cease and desist, carry on, but do not try to infringe the right of Google and everyone else to use a camera in a public place. - Taking photographs in a public place is not illegal. - Threatening behaviour with a deadly weapon (spearguns are designed and built to kill) is illegal. - Attempting to infringe or deny the legal rights of others is illegal. - Suborning others to commit criminal offences is illegal. I'll take photographs in any public place I damned well please; if someone tries to deny me that right, or threatens me with a deadly weapon, I'll have him arrested. Google is much nicer than I am; it lets them get away with it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark Wallace wrote:
Taking photographs in a public place is not illegal.
You are making the assumption again, that the law is the same all over the world. Well... it isn't :)
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
Taking photographs in a public place is not illegal.
You are making the assumption again, that the law is the same all over the world. Well... it isn't :)
That argument, which appears to be the only argument available to support the call for criminilisation of taking photographs in public places, is so fallacious that it's unreal. Do you live in a country where taking photographs in public places is illegal? If not, try to live -- and make demands -- based on your own country's laws. If shagging sheep is legal in Lower Patamolia, if cuckoldism is illegal in Aribakistan, what the Hell do you and the anti-Google brigade care? Are you going to demand that everyone, world-wide, start shagging sheep, or that women who fancy a bit on the side be stoned to death? Here you go, following the same process: - Criticising the law is illegal in several countries. - People are criticising laws that allow the taking of pictures in public places. - Cut their goolies off.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
That argument, which appears to be the only argument available to support the call for criminilisation of taking photographs in public places, is so fallacious that it's unreal. Do you live in a country where taking photographs in public places is illegal? If not, try to live -- and make demands -- based on your own country's laws. If shagging sheep is legal in Lower Patamolia, if cuckoldism is illegal in Aribakistan, what the Hell do you and the anti-Google brigade care? Are you going to demand that everyone, world-wide, start shagging sheep, or that women who fancy a bit on the side be stoned to death? Here you go, following the same process: - Criticising the law is illegal in several countries. - People are criticising laws that allow the taking of pictures in public places. - Cut their goolies off.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark Wallace wrote:
Do you live in a country where taking photographs in public places is illegal?
I live in a country where taking photographs in public places is illegal under some circumstances, yes. Some people in Denmark are questioning whether or not Google Street View is legal in Denmark based on paragraph 264a in Danish law.
Mark Wallace wrote:
Are you going to demand that everyone, world-wide, start shagging sheep, or that women who fancy a bit on the side be stoned to death?
Please fill me in on the thought-process that led to you posting such a question to me based on the things i wrote in this thread...
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
Do you live in a country where taking photographs in public places is illegal?
I live in a country where taking photographs in public places is illegal under some circumstances, yes. Some people in Denmark are questioning whether or not Google Street View is legal in Denmark based on paragraph 264a in Danish law.
Mark Wallace wrote:
Are you going to demand that everyone, world-wide, start shagging sheep, or that women who fancy a bit on the side be stoned to death?
Please fill me in on the thought-process that led to you posting such a question to me based on the things i wrote in this thread...
Jakob Olsen wrote:
Some people in Denmark are questioning
Bloggers and wasters on the Internet, sure, but not lawmakers. When Danish lawmakers start making similar comments in the appropriate chambers, they can be taken as a serious comments. Until then, it's just jabber.
Jakob Olsen wrote:
Please fill me in on the thought-process that led to you posting such a question to me based on the things i wrote in this thread...
You imply that because something might or might not be legal (according to people with no legal power or real knowledge of law) in "other countries", that legality/illegality (as defined by people with no legal power or real knowledge of law, remember) must be applied globally. I responded with much more real laws (well, OK, maybe not the sheep shagging). If your unreal laws (written by people with no legal power or real knowledge of law) must be applied globally, then surely real laws should, too, so we should all have our tongues cut out for blaspheming against gods we know nothing about, and worship the leaders of dictatorships. Until that happens, I will continue to revile Kim Il Sung, and I (and Google) will continue to take photographs in public, ta very much.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Jakob Olsen wrote:
Some people in Denmark are questioning
Bloggers and wasters on the Internet, sure, but not lawmakers. When Danish lawmakers start making similar comments in the appropriate chambers, they can be taken as a serious comments. Until then, it's just jabber.
Jakob Olsen wrote:
Please fill me in on the thought-process that led to you posting such a question to me based on the things i wrote in this thread...
You imply that because something might or might not be legal (according to people with no legal power or real knowledge of law) in "other countries", that legality/illegality (as defined by people with no legal power or real knowledge of law, remember) must be applied globally. I responded with much more real laws (well, OK, maybe not the sheep shagging). If your unreal laws (written by people with no legal power or real knowledge of law) must be applied globally, then surely real laws should, too, so we should all have our tongues cut out for blaspheming against gods we know nothing about, and worship the leaders of dictatorships. Until that happens, I will continue to revile Kim Il Sung, and I (and Google) will continue to take photographs in public, ta very much.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I must correct you again. The people that started this discussion are highly respected law-experts. It has also been picked up by people in the danish government that want to have the legality investigated. These are not "unreal laws" as you state. They are very real indeed. As i mentioned in a previous post the actual paragraph in Danish law, that Google may or may not be violating is paragraph 264a.
Mark Wallace wrote:
You imply that because something might or might not be legal (according to people with no legal power or real knowledge of law) in "other countries", that legality/illegality (as defined by people with no legal power or real knowledge of law, remember) must be applied globally.
I am not implying anything even remotely resembling what you babble about here. Actually i am trying to make the completely opposite point. Just because Google Street View is legal in your country does not make it legal in my country. I couldn't care less if Google Street View is legal in Holland, or anywhere else - but i do care whether they break Danish law or not by taking Pictures in Denmark.
-
I must correct you again. The people that started this discussion are highly respected law-experts. It has also been picked up by people in the danish government that want to have the legality investigated. These are not "unreal laws" as you state. They are very real indeed. As i mentioned in a previous post the actual paragraph in Danish law, that Google may or may not be violating is paragraph 264a.
Mark Wallace wrote:
You imply that because something might or might not be legal (according to people with no legal power or real knowledge of law) in "other countries", that legality/illegality (as defined by people with no legal power or real knowledge of law, remember) must be applied globally.
I am not implying anything even remotely resembling what you babble about here. Actually i am trying to make the completely opposite point. Just because Google Street View is legal in your country does not make it legal in my country. I couldn't care less if Google Street View is legal in Holland, or anywhere else - but i do care whether they break Danish law or not by taking Pictures in Denmark.
Jakob Olsen wrote:
The people that started this discussion are highly respected law-experts
Point me in the direction of one "highly respected law-expert" involved who doesn't just say "beh" (publicity-seeking jerks like Oluf Jørgensen need not apply). Most local government authorities in Denmark are excited about the idea, because it has more actual value to local governments than it does to anyone else -- and the national government is aware of this, so is highly likely to voice any serious opposition. And the Netherlands (there is no such country as "Holland") is not my country, by the way.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I'm quite sure that if you write Google and ask them to fuzzy up all or part of a picture of you or your property, they will, so that's that argument out of the way. But that's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with all this "WHAT GOOGLE IS DOING IS ILLEGAL!!!" crap. If you want to exercise your legal right to ask Google to cease and desist, carry on, but do not try to infringe the right of Google and everyone else to use a camera in a public place. - Taking photographs in a public place is not illegal. - Threatening behaviour with a deadly weapon (spearguns are designed and built to kill) is illegal. - Attempting to infringe or deny the legal rights of others is illegal. - Suborning others to commit criminal offences is illegal. I'll take photographs in any public place I damned well please; if someone tries to deny me that right, or threatens me with a deadly weapon, I'll have him arrested. Google is much nicer than I am; it lets them get away with it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
At the scale goole does it at, it changes opt-in to opt-out. If you'd walk the entire neighbourhood every day, and took pictures of people they don't want to have taken, people likely would stop asking politely and look for other measures.
Mark Wallace wrote:
"WHAT GOOGLE IS DOING IS ILLEGAL!!!"
I've never said that. However, law is neitehr static nor for it's own purpose. Rather, law is for the people. Laws have always been introduced and changed due to development of technology. One infamous recent example is the DMCA. Circumventrion of copy technology was not illegal - because at the scale it did happen it didn't matter. New technologies sprung up that didn't change the fact - copying of copyrighted media - but they changed scale.
I am quite certain google lets the protesters slide partly because they know they are on dangerous terrain. Dragging a violent protester to court is likely to get the protestor punished, but the ruling might include an obligation for google to change the practice - or at least provide a commentary laying the ground for further movement. Besides, if people would not stand up against the law from time to time, your lord would have bedded your wife first.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.