Slashdot Mirror

God I hope it's the house shown here. I'd really like to see how well that argument of "lowering the value of their house" works. I mean, I'm pretty much seeing a small shack on some dirt with a coupla garages. But they do have a pool!

this appears to be about the same case that was reported back in april http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google1.html it's hard to tell because the linked article in this slashdot story has pretty much no identifying information besides "Pennsylvania" and "private road" however, there are a couple of these roads marked as "Private Road" in Pittsburgh. I believe when I first heard about it, there were several of these roads "street view"able. this one has been taken off as well as a couple of other private roads. it's probably safe to assume it's a response to the complaint. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oakridge+Ln,+Pittsburgh,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania+15237,+United+States&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hl=en&cd=1&geocode=0,40.575870,-80.079510&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&ll=40.578336,-80.079153&spn=0.010593,0.021179&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.57501,-80.077183&panoid=q8qE5vF8Oc7W2jkP4jFV9A&cbp=1,292.8765722178444,,0,5.671234277821568

Arguing that technology has ensured that "complete privacy does not exist," Google contends that a Pennsylvania family has no legal grounds to sue the search giant for publishing photos of their home on its popular "Street View" mapping feature.

He downloaded this.

Al Gore is just an environmentalist and a politician. In terms of delivering facts about climate change, he's not relevant. I'm not quite sure why he does so much speaking about it

ahhhh ...

A few years back, Smoking Gun obtained a ton of DMV complaint letters about vanity plates and put it on their site. Link

Are you sure about this?

Shouldn't that alone be enough to get her on child abuse charges - providing the messages can still be accessed?

If I can go out on a limb here: I actually thought Pan's Labyrinth was mostly a very over-saturated (read: tarted up) retelling of Northfork. If you've seen that, Pan's Labyrinth is basically the same story. Except that it's full of eyecandy. There are points in Northfork that are stunning in their simple beauty, and it comes with a surprisingly sober Nick Nolte.

After that, Pan's Labyrinth seems kinda derivative.

This does not change my opinion on the awesomeness of Hellboy, though that's mostly because I'm a Ron Perlman fan, and Selma Blair is totally hot (no pun intended).

But does it come with hookers?

FTFA, since you obviously didn't read it, or you would have seen the URLs. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0407081google2.html It's VERY CLEARLY on private property, and very clearly right the fuck in front of the garage. Feet from the house.

If you look at the satellite view, there are what appear to be two enormous trees laid down on the ground. That, plus the difference between the assessor's photograph and the street-view images (which are now legally and irretrievably published in their own complaint - check out http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0407081google1.html ) suggest to me that they're pissed off that Google has exposed their tree-killing and redevelopment of the "class D" property.

From the fine article:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0407081google2.html

I se no evidence of "private road" signs, nor do I see "no trespassing" signs. The house is certainly not visible from the main street, and it's not really visible where the "gravel" portion of the driveway becomes "concrete", which was supposed to be some big tipoff.

I fail to be impressed ... the Streetview driver drove down a named road marked on his map, which wasn't posted as private, wasn't obviously private, and ended up having to find a place to turn around at the end ... which just happened to be in the driveway of these homeowners. So what? As a homeowner myself, I hardly find this outrageous ... people turn around in my driveway all the time. And although Streetview has missed my house by a block, I'm not going to be outraged when they finally come back.

You may get upset by me standing on a public road and gawking at it for the whole day, but there is not anything you can do about that

Those are low-resolution photos of someone's driveway.

Correction: these are low-resolution photos taken from someones driveway, which is private property.

Sure, I grew up on a gravel road, but my gravel public lanes never came complete with garage doors!.

They were clearly and undeniably in the couples' driveway.

Sure, I grew up on a gravel road, but my gravel public lanes never came complete with garage doors!.

They were clearly and undeniably in the couples' driveway.

Here, let me make it simple for you, since you apparently can't be bothered to actually read the article: There is a clearly marked "Private Road" sign.

First, it appears that no attempt to request the images be removed was made.

Second, doing shit like this only makes it worse. If there really was any concern over privacy then this is by far the worst thing you could do to protect it.

Third, I would love so hear how taking pictures of a property devalues it.

In other words, this has all the seemings of someone who decided to look up their own house on Street View and thought "free money!"

No, I only read the Boston.com article, but *now* I've read TF Smoking Gun article.

They paid $160K for the house in 2006, apparently. That's not all that expensive for a house. Fine, they're likely not the wealthiest of folks. I don't think that qualifies as "living in squalor", though. I sincerely hope you're simply succumbing to unnecessary hyperbole here.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google7.html

Besides all that, the articles indicate that, no, it's not a county road - it's a private drive. My understanding is that a "private drive" is a road on land you own and maintain. I know these are still included on maps if they are any significant length - that doesn't necessarily make them county roads.

And again, my opinion is predicated on the veracity of this information. It essentially boils down to this: Google simply doesn't have a right to travel onto private land and take pictures of someone's home without asking permission *first*. It makes all the difference if the picture is taken from a public road, with visual information similar to what one would see from a public view (i.e. no telephoto zoom shots through the bathroom window, etc). These folks are adamant about wanting their privacy, and I feel they should have it.

They are.

This story was posted to Fark earlier this week, and linked to The Smoking Gun. Apparently these people should sue their own government also, because the assessors office has a picture of the house online as well, complete with all the dimensions of the house/

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google8.html

These knuckleheads should have just done the opt-out and this whole thing would have been over. Now theyâ(TM)ve invoked the Streisand Effect and everyone in the world has seen their private house. They are most definitely in it just for the cash, who would give a rip about their crappy little home, it looks like a half step up from a broken down mobile-home.

I'm not saying I agree with this lawsuit however I think their point is that the van entered their property and took photos which they published online.

The view that the Allegheny County website can be see here -

http://tinyurl.com/4fxjxq

Seems to be taken from the road.

These images, specifically the ones on the bottom appear to be taken on their property -

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google7.html

My first impression of this is the van turned around in their lot and some of those pictures ended up online.

I think this couple is looking for a payday. Google allows you to have images removed from their StreetView, I don't think this couple ever bothered to ask.

All they need to do is call a phone in the US. Then the Gov't can't track them without a warrant.

I'd like to add that you shouldn't send a link to a potentially uninterested party with a spiel. Use something casual like "Wow, this sucks.\nLink" and let the conversation go (or die) from there.

As an example, I once showed this story to a friend who is on the path to becoming a teacher. Within a day all of their online profiles were available to friends only.

Now some people have absolutely no concept of privacy. They won't change their minds until something bad happens to them (or someone that they are really close to), so don't bother. If they ever do ask your advice (if something were to happen), offer to help. That's really the best you can do.

Dead Reverend's Rubber Fetish
Autopsy: Pastor found in wetsuits after autoerotic mishap

OCTOBER 8--An Alabama minister who died in June of "accidental mechanical asphyxia" was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask, according to an autopsy report. Investigators determined that Rev. Gary Aldridge's death was not caused by foul play and that the 51-year-old pastor of Montgomery's Thorington Road Baptist Church was alone in his home at the time he died (while apparently in the midst of some autoerotic undertaking). While the Montgomery Advertiser, which first obtained the autopsy records, reported on Aldridge's two wet suits, the family newspaper chose not to mention what police discovered inside the minister's rubber briefs. Aldridge served as the church's pastor for 16 years. Immediately following his death, church officials issued a press release asking community members to "please refrain from speculation" about what led to Aldridge's demise, adding that, "we will begin the healing process under the strong arm of our Savior, Jesus Christ." (5 pages)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html

You couldn't even tell if you cross-referenced with credit card information. One mixed drink might cost the same as two beers or four sodas, so anyone looking to use that info wouldn't be able to prove that the individual who went to the bar actually drank.

I bet the America West pilot and co-pilot who received prison sentences for attempting to fly an Airbus while both were drunk wish they had paid cash for that infamous $142.28 bar tab.

The "sex industry" sometimes goes a mite too far with technology. See this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/clublove1.html/

This device is a classic example of unpatentable subject matter. It is also the funniest OSHA complaint that I have ever read.

Medical devices - no problem. Tools such as this one - well, it is illegal to use without meeting the OSHA bodily fluids protocol.

I'd say that the "industry" has been an early adopter simply because the profits are so high for the producers - and, certain male medications now make one of the major problems on set a thing of the past.

Oh yeah.. you're right.. here's their prisoner treatment manual..

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

That's better.

I wonder if they're as proud as Bush was for ignoring memos titled Bin Laden determined to attack in US, not taking heed (and improving airline security), and successfully making us vulnerable to an attack.
Cause that's totally comparable to someone releasing the SOP manuals of a prison.
You see, friend, it's people like you who "weaken" and make America "more vulnerable to terrorist attacks". Instead of targeting your anger toward an administration that has let its incompetence actually harm American interests, you'd rather cry about some hypothetical weakening.

How's about comparing it to al Qaeda's manual?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html

So you're suggesting that the judge is corrupt and prejudicial and that this case was not decided on its merits.
that's the Verdict Coming For "Penis Pump" Judge, it gives "meet me in chambers" a whole new meaning.

If that were the case, then we would have missed out on fun like this

Priceless!

It is not an unusual accusation. But seeing as I am in the documents-are-authentic camp, having not seen any claim against them (the laughable font stuff, kerning, language, etc. criticisms) withstand scrutiny, I won't defend it.

And in the end, it will not matter. So long as this runs to completion, the speculation of a thousand slashdotters won't matter any more than George Bush's present status as an ex-con.

Nick Nolte has volunteered to personally pick up every toy bead set at your home...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html

He claims that he personally knows of the dangers of GBH...

You got that right.

If we assume that everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty *as charged* we have no justice system, or at best a Napoleonic system. And they are the same in that the RIAA asserts that the Sergeant was the actor in the copyright infringement occurring on his computer, while Vick's indictment asserts he was an actor in the illegal activity occurring on his property. If either the RIAA's complaint or Vick's indictment lacked these features, the cases would be thrown out at once. In our justice system we rely on the *evidence* to judge the merits of a case against *any* defendant, criminal or civil.

The "pseudo-logic" was actually logic isolating the similarity of the two cases, which is that both defendants are asserting they had no idea of what was occurring. It's actually a common tool when referencing case law to demonstrate the strength of the precedent and its relevance to the case at hand when the subject matter of the cases is unrelated, but the point of law is.

1. prove Vick's motivation was as stated. Recurse back to the unknowing possession entry point above.

or

2. prove Sgt. Paternoster *didn't* buy his computer for the purpose of copyright infringement. again, recurse to the unknowing possession entry point above.

itsatrap!!

What, no Mugshots?

Your "definition" of torture might be clarified a bit if you were chained in a cell while someone was beaten to death in front of you.

You just need to realize that people really are being tortured in facilities operated by the US Government, right now, as I type this.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0624041pump1. html

The link didn't work... I wonder why? There was supposed to be a link to the story indicated above where "this story" is written...

Intent matters.

So, to counter this, we deliberately invade as many tangentially related countries as possible, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, sacrificing thousands of our soldiers' lives and "accidentally" killing tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners.

We don't intend to kill innocents or civilians (isolated - yes, isolated - incidents where some individual person MAY "intend" to kill a civilian in war aside). It is not condoned nor supported by policy or our population. The US spends literally billions of dollars on weapons systems with no other purpose than ever-increasing the precision so as not to destroy or harm infrastructure or persons not intended.

And if you're talking about Iraq, the "hundreds of thousands" (e.g., 655,000)-type figures simply don't stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny.

We imprison thousands of people and deny them trials.

Huh? Where? Who? At most, there were hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay, and dozens in rendition programs, and frankly, I - and thankfully many others - see terrorism and the fights against Islamic radicalism in general as a military issue, not an issue for the courts. Even things like the Military Commissions Act, designed to clarify US response to enemy combatants and their status, DOES NOT apply to US citizens or persons with a valid US immigration status.

So, I kind of don't know what you're talking about here.

We torture some, and send others to third-world countries that we know will torture them for us.

Whatever. We also kill some. Surprising, isn't it? That throughout history, humans kill others who would kill them?

And as to torture, this is torture. Not bright lights and music. Not medical treatment darlings of the American left claim is far better than what 9/11 first responders are receiving. And believe it or not, one can still support an effort while simultaneously not excusing or condoning unacceptable acts that may be intermingled.

The problem is in that delightful world of moral relativism, intent doesn't matter. So if the US kills X number of innocent people in an invasion, even though that is the last thing it wants to do, it's the same as anyone else killing X number of innocent people. And people like Al Qaeda and Wahabbists fighting for their "way of life" are no different that, say, the West fighting for its "way of life". Unfortunately, moral relativism is so misguided that it's almost laughable, and the general values of democracy and freedom massively trump the general values of Panislamic radicalism and its tenets.

We pass laws to make it impossible for any citizen to tell whether government officials are following the law.

Not sure which of the various blog-fodder "laws" you're talking about here, but no, we in fact don't do this, and the fact that government officials have been able to operate in secrecy on issues which are classified is hardly new in this nation or any other. And on the subject of classified material, some entity or entities has to decide what is and isn't classified, else the entire longstanding system of information classification is utterly meaningless.

We empower the military operate within our borders, against our own citizens.

Wrong. If you're talking about the update to the Insurrection Act of 1807, the military has no further power to operate within US borders, "against our own citizens", than it has for 200 years.

The conditions that must be met for domestic use of the military are as follows:

2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the const

Mary Wilson, who with Diana Ross and Florence Ballard formed the original Supremes, said the exemption was unfair and forced older musicians to continue touring to pay their bills.

This is the CEO of HBO.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/05 07071hbo1.html

They say the best leaders, lead by example. Are you surprised that his underlings are trying to "re-brand" DRM into a more palatable form to confuse consumers into accepting it?