Slashdot Mirror
Barbra Streisand, Miss Vermont, And Your Website
An anonymous reader writes "A Silicon Valley millionaire, Ken Adelman, is being sued by Barbra Streisand for $50 million. Adelman photographed Streisand's sea-side Malibu mansion using a 6 megapixel Nikon digital camera from a helicopter flying over the Pacific Ocean. The photograph, along with over 12,000 other photographs, is part of an aerial photographic survey of the California coastline. This photographic database is intended for use by environmental and scientific research projects interested in the health of the coastline and coastal erosion. Streisand's suit complains that the photograph is of extraordinary clarity and violates her right to privacy, as it shows details of the property that one would not ordinarily be able to see from the road or the beach. California has an 'anti-paparazzi' statute on the books."
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
This is cleary explained on the site:
Privacy Concerns
We are aware that we have photographed a number of homes in the process of documenting the California Coast. The California Coast is a unique and beautiful place, and those people who have chosen to live on it have made the coast a part of their lives, and their lives a part of the coast. It should come as no surprise that the public at large would be attracted to view this beautiful place some call home. We have little sympathy for those who would feel that in order to enjoy the beauty of the coast that they must deny others access to it.
All of the photographs on this site have been taken from a public place and in compliance with applicable Federal and State laws. (emphasis mine)
Please be sure to review some of the highest resolution photographs before forming your own opinion. You cannot see much detail, for example, identify individuals or see into a house. Also, as discussed in the next section, this information is available elsewhere.
A very good book about how technology will affect the privacy of all of us is The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? by David Brin.
Oops. I mean Toots.
:-)
....Bethanie....
The major problem I have with the whole Miss Vermont thing is that the tales told about her are ADMITTEDLY accurate (RT[F]A). Now, she is holding herself up as a model of abstinence, temperance, steadfastness... and a whole other load of crap (see the saccharin-sweet-make-you-puke intro to her website, which I'm not gonna link to here 'cause she's on a litigious rampage, apparently *cough* www.katyjohnson.com *cough*)
The problem isn't that she's being hypocritical -- everyone has the right to change their mind about the values they hold and what they want to represent. But the truth is, SHE DID THE STUFF that Max is writing about.
Don't we all have dirty little secrets in our past (like, say, those 2 consecutive French Quarter Mardi Gras back in the 90s... I've still got sacks and sacks of beads -- my daughter *loves* playing with them!)??
If you can't face up to your past, DON'T pursue a role as a public figure (like Miss Pure-and-Proper America -- DUH). Eventually, it's gonna come back and bite you in the ass. Either have the ovaries to stand up and address the "mistakes" you've made, or STFU and retire to a quiet life of obscurity.
If you're really lucky, you can buy a house in Barbra Streisand's neighborhood and be ensured of your privacy!
Yes, exactly right. For example, in the freely available property tax database for central Texas, Sandra Bullock's place is listed as "NOT AVAILABLE." Yet the name (and often spouse info) of every other person on her block is listed.
An interesting angle on the Barbara Streisand suit:
The photographer claims to have taken his pictures "from a helicopter flying over the Pacific Ocean." This could present a jurisdictional issue.
SCOTUS precedent holds that the federal government has sole jurisdiction to the airspace over the US, as well as to lands off the coast (United States v. State of Texas, 1950, for the latter decision, which was used to support the former as well; a previous case, US v. California, also deals with offshore rights, and was used to support US v. Texas). If the location from which the picures were taken was outside the jurisdiction of California, then California would have no claim; in this case, he may have been twice out of their jurisdiction: once offshore, once in the air. Without jurisdiction, the State of California can blow and go all it wants, but can't bother the photographer. 'Course, he'll probably have to fight in Federal court to establish that, but it's still an interesting position.
You'd think the First Amendment would take care of such things, but it wouldn't be the first Amendment (no pun intended) to be ignored in California....
(IANAL, but I did help write a textbook on Aviation Law; US v. Texas is discussed in Chapter 7.)
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
And if the answer had been yes, the recount that the democrats were asking for WOULD HAVE MADE BUSH PRESIDENT.
I agree. The only problem is that those votes were and are simply the answer to a trivia question; they never became a part of our electoral process. The votes didn't make him president, the courts did. Well, the courts and Catherine Harris- who acted not as Secretary of the State of Florida, but as co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign.
If you agree that the votes, *had* they been a part of our electoral process, would have been in Mr. Bush's favor, then you also agree that he would be still be president today if everyone had just shut the fuck up, stopped whining about 'hanging chads' and 'confusing ballots' and just let the guy with the most votes win. Like Mr. Spock said, 'A difference which makes no difference *is* no difference.' I don't see how it could really be all that complicated. I saw the Florida ballots, and if you 'did not understand the ballot' or 'did not know who [you were] voting for', please stick your head in the oven, turn the gas on, and go to nice, quiet sleep. Also, although I am a Libertarian, I find it vastly amusing that the Democrats couldn't seem to understand the whole voting thing. It just makes me laugh. No, we don't need more choice in education in this country, people. Just let those great public schools keep up the good work. Maybe in 20 years we can have an electorate that votes by making monosyllabic grunts toward pictures of candidates. 'Ungar vote him! He have shiny smile!' Bah. A two party system is a sucker bet anyhow. If you don't fit into one of those two parties, might as well not even register to vote. (Yeah, yeah, activist types. Of course you should try to change whatever, turn around the system blah blah bullshit. I'm registered, I vote, I care, I do what I can, but I don't have any illusions that we'll see a third party president (or female, or gay, or minority, or any combination of the above) until more Americans start coming to their own conclusions, instead of listening to and following blindly what they say. My views may not be popular, but I've come to them through study, thought, and experience. They are not based on feelings. They are not based on half-remembered conversations. They are not based on what I was taught in school. I really don't care if someone agrees with me or not, as long as they know *why* they agree or disagree. I can't talk to people about anything that matters if they say 'uh, i dunno' or 'i just feel that way' when I ask why they believe something. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. This country is built on differing opinions. Just be able to present a coherent rationale, to back up what you say with at least a logical argument.
Also, on a slightly different note, I for one am very glad that it was Mr. Bush, not Gore, who did end up elected. I voted Libertarian, as I usually do (though not always), but I don't think Senor Brown would have handled 9/11 very well, and I'm positive Gore would not have. I don't like Mr. Bush as much as I have liked other Presidents in history, but would you really want Gore trying to get the Middle East to give up internal combustion engines instead of terrorism?
http://xkcd.com/386/