Squeak 17 #26 December 8, 2008 Quote.Quote...the Pentagon doesn’t mind that the whole place is clearly shown in the satellite photos that are a few clicks away on Google Maps and elsewhere. Still, you can learn a lot about a building from panoramic street-level images that just doesn’t show in satellite photos, so it’s not too hard to understand the sensitivity in the Pentagon. Source: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/google-street-view-on-army-bases-better-not/ Can tourists walk past and get the same sorts of shots?You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #27 December 8, 2008 In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. Go down to Fort Huachuca or certain areas of Ft. Bliss and whip out a camera and see how that works out for ya. (Disclaimer: My experience in that area goes back some 20+ years and things may have changed),Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #28 December 8, 2008 Quote and it clearly says "not to be used for any illegal purpose"-so that should take care of that (Wendy looks both ways and checks -- yup, it's SC) Why wouldn't that work? It's enough for guns.(note: I haven't seen any SC gun-rights advocates taking an opposing stance -- folks are consistent -- just ribbing) Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #29 December 8, 2008 >>Why wouldn't that work? It's enough for guns. troublemaker The reason I brought this whole thing up is because All I hear everywhere I go is the slogan-"Freedom isn't free" And I think you'll agree with this; Freedom isn't free because activists and average citizens have to be constantly aware of the activities around them and make sure that their rights, constitutional or otherwise, are not being slowly eroded. Google with it's colorful logo has a nice and fuzzy reputation of being a company whose slogan is "don't be evil" and I am not saying that they are nefarious in any way. However it is an information processing database when you get down to it and it is very easy for that database to be used as a form of surveillance by any number of organizations . As I said rights are usually eroded slowly and insidiously over time- in this example it may start as a simple photo record of the street view of your home and property from the public thoroughfare. But if you start to slowly ramp up the resolution over time next thing you know you won't have any privacy IN your home. One day it is a harmless looking VW bug going down your street taking pictures-the next its a full on surveillance van. Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #30 December 9, 2008 This all seems a little silly. Have you put a dollar figure to the cost of a daily photo surveillance of this scope? All 4 million miles of public road? I'm guessing $1 billion start up cost and $500 million each year after... once they get this in place I'm sure the book burning will follow shortly after. "Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #31 December 9, 2008 Sure,it seems a little silly NOW. I'm not talking about daily surveillance of every property all the time-Im talking about the precedent this sets for individual surveillance from a public locale using state of the art technology,whatever that may be in the future, without consent or permission. I'm not against the current practice if it is limited to the magnification of the naked human eye at normal 20/20 vision from the street once every few years- that's fine according to the current laws as I understand them. But what magnification is allowable, can it later include audio? Should the residents be warned ahead of time so they can at least be prepared or refuse having their property photographed and recorded on an internet database? Can a vehicle PARK on a street and record information for an extended period of time without a warrant? See Google street view for all intensive purposes is NEW technology It has not been argued, there was no public discourse, and residents were not informed- they just went ahead and did it as far as I know unless someone can show me otherwise. Google likes to push the envelope of information technology, they had the guts to undertake and fund this effort, it's genius, very useful, and I applaud them for it, thats great- but how FAR should they or anyone else be allowed to go, and THAT is my question.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 December 9, 2008 I understand where you're coming from, but since it is in full view of the public, and given that there is no expectation of privacy in a public venue, people griping about invasion of privacy are going to have a REALLY tough row to hoe on this one.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonBones 1 #33 December 9, 2008 I think Google's plans for the street view are going a bit far and may be crossing the privacy line in the near future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE108 way head down world record!!! http://www.simonbones.com Hit me up on Facebook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #34 December 9, 2008 >>people griping about invasion of privacy are going to have a REALLY tough row to hoe on this one. I know, and it will take a few lawsuits for people to determine where the actual surveillance line is given this new technology. But at least then the issue gets to be properly hashed out in the courts before the scrutiny level becomes a real privacy problem in the future. Maybe some standards can be set to prevent infractions. When you get down to it, right now it's all fun and games- until someone's nasty pic ends up on Billy Vance's NSFW thread.. Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #35 December 9, 2008 The Googling part three.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 December 9, 2008 Quote I know, and it will take a few lawsuits for people to determine where the actual surveillance line is given this new technology. But at least then the issue gets to be properly hashed out in the courts before the scrutiny level becomes a real privacy problem in the future. Maybe some standards can be set to prevent infractions. This isn't new technology, really. It's just implemented effectively enough and on a wide enough scale that events can happen, like adulterers getting caught coming out of someone's house. A 1 in a million piece of bad luck, but it's remains open space. In contrast, the UK has millions of cameras running non stop, and this has been done on smaller scale in some US cities. SF has some set up in problem areas, but the quality of the image/program is so poor that it's accomplished little for the loss of privacy. In those areas, you have people who don't care about privacy at all, and those that do. Lots of debate, but so far it remains true that you don't have an expectation of privacy when you're walking down the street. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #37 December 9, 2008 >>but the quality of the image/program is so poor that it's accomplished little for the loss of privacy. It's the image quality that I think is the biggest issue. in my view it should not be allowed to exceed that of the unaided human eye, that seems reasonable. Also, as an example of fair warning- when power companies shut down power for planned repairs or do any herbicide spraying, they mail out a warning to likely affected customers. It would not cost Google that much to issue the same mailing so that people could at least refuse or not be caught off guard on that particular group of days. You would think they would have been advised to do so for liability reasons in case someone felt the need to sue them for an invasion of privacy. Like I said it's all good till someone gets caught doing something they don't want the world to know about, or a pic involving their children gets posted on the internet- then the lawsuits will fly. Myself? what do I care, I am a social liberal -if people want to drive by and take pictures of me in my yard, I promise the joke will be on them. Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #38 December 10, 2008 Maybe Google turned in some pictures of Blagojevich stuffing his pockets.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 December 10, 2008 Quote It's the image quality that I think is the biggest issue. in my view it should not be allowed to exceed that of the unaided human eye, that seems reasonable. the unaided eye is pretty sharp, well beyond anything I've seen on these cameras or web pages. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #40 December 10, 2008 Good, how about establishing a protocol, because the way things are now there are NO legal limits on the magnification. Next we can talk about what constitutes probable cause using this technology.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
