Slashdot Mirror
Google Caught On Private Property
nathan halverson writes "Google recently launched Street View coverage in Sonoma and Mendocino counties — big pot growing counties. And while they hardly covered the area's biggest city, Santa Rosa, they canvassed many of the rural areas known for growing pot. I found at least one instance where they drove well onto private property, past a gate and no trespassing sign, and took photographs. I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking, but someone is likely to find some pot plants captured on Street View. That could cause big problems for residents. Because while growing a substantial amount of pot is legal in Mendocino and Sonoma County under state law, it's highly illegal under federal law and would be grounds for a federal raid."
Look, if you haven't figured out that Google and the governments of the countries they are in work closely together on everything from data mining to monitoring your activities by now... well you're just a fool.
That's what we pay the CIA and DHS security goon squads to do, spy on everyone (but you of course, you're special and they aren't watching you).
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Here is an interesting idea: Don't break the fucking law.
I hope you intended that to apply to Google as well - trespassing is breaking the law.
It might take a shitload of well deserved invasion of privacy lawsuits against Google for them to get their act together and do the Streetview correctly. Whoever planned the picture taking for Streetview obviously had little experience with the laws relating to photography - wonder if anyone there ever heard of a "model release".
Excuse a non American dude here, but if growing pot within the boundaries you describe is legal according to the state, how can it be illegal nationally?
Which one of the systems has precedence?
Excellent question. I believe the founding fathers of our country intended state law to take precedence.
Google StreetView now has all of the major U.S. cities covered. Except the Washington, D.C. area. Of the top forty metropolitan areas in the US, Google has all of them covered except #8, the Washington D.C. area, and #20, the Baltimore area. There's no StreetView data for a 75-mile radius around Washington. They've covered Wilmington, DE and Richmond, VA, both about 100 miles from Washington, but that's as close as they get.
They're working on rural areas of California. They've worked down to Knoxville, TN, Greenville, NC, and Boise, IH. So it can't be accidental that they've avoided Washington.
One wonders why.
Most pot growing is still illegal under California Law. Under Prop 215 you can grow pot for personal use provided your doctor has prescribed it.
You can also grow it as a designated agent for someone who has a doctor's recommendation under California Law. The main catch is you can't transport it to them.
Of course the federales can do a bust, but prosecuting people for trivial offenses which don't cross state lines is normally done on the State's dime; and I doubt the people of Wyoming want their taxes raised to keep all those California pot-heads in federal prisons if they manage to get a conviction. The feds just 'arrest' property, since when accused of a crime property in the USA is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Some individuals have put in a claim that their property is innocent of a crime and have had their pot plants returned, but this is rare -- and much more expensive than just growing some more, it is a weed after all.
It's not just the federales harassing the citizens of California. Some local authorities do it too. They are allowed to enforce the silliest of federal laws in addition to the local laws. But the brunt of the federal law kicks in at cultivation of 100 plants or possession of 100 kilos. Many growers in California consequently stay at 99 plants or less. You can get jail time for smaller amounts, but it's generally a misdemeanor and you also need to find a jury that will actually convict. Their main goal is to harass their victims and 'arrest' any cash they find lying around.
As to the topic at hand, you need to be a real idiot to install a road on your property without a closed gate at the entrance and not expect cars to accidentally drive down the road.
PS I find no use for pot in my own life but cringe at the waste of money, lives, and freedom the 'war' has cost us.
Just replace them with plastic pot plants - our local supermarket cafe actually has plastic pot plants that have 5 point leaves with the central point the longest and the side points the sdhortest.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
We already have laws against driving while under the influence or while intoxicated, and people drive drunk all the time. There are exactly zero negative effects of legalizing pot that aren't already present in the widespread use of alcohol, and already illegal. The illegality of pot is a blanket, stopgap measure that's better fixed with other existing laws. So, why is pot illegal? Personally, I blame religious bigotry, but there's always the legendary 'think of the children' BS politicians love to pull.
I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. I am Dutch and many of my friends smok(ed) cannabis. I have seen them drive (and traveled as a passenger with them) and I'd rather be in a car with someone who had just smoked a big joint then with anyone who drank just one beer. When high, one tends to drive more careful than normal. Alcohol makes one forget their responsibilities, cannabis does not. Probably the people you saw (or claim to have seen) were what we call 'stronken' which, in English would translate to 'strunk', a combination of stoned and drunken, a very bad combination. I have never seen any of my friends seen driving when they had drunk, having smoked or not.
The fact that alcohol is legal and pot is not has nothing to do with the effects on society (which are a lot worse for alcohol as they are/would be for legal cannabis), but mostly with a paranoid stance that was initiated by the USA because some influential politicians growing wood for paper production needed an excuse to ban hemp when a method was found to make better and cheaper paper out of it that endangered their business.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
It may seem funny but people really live in environments where the fear of retaliation for speaking with the police is so strong that they say nothing.
Let me tell you a story about "snitching", why I will never do it again and why it has zero to do with who I'm snitching on. It's the damn cops themselves! I had a friend of mine who I thought was going to be raped, I called it in, the cop showed up to take my report. I knew where they were going, or had only one idea where they would go but didn't have any address or street names - only how to get there. I was on my bike, so I joined him in his cruiser and proceeded to guide him to where I thought it was. Once we got there, it was in the back woods, I was very surprised to see three other cruisers already there, cops out, lights twirling and weapons drawn - someone else had apparently called something in obviously. In the end nothing happened, he took me back to my bike - but before letting me go, ran me through the system looking for warrants or anything to nail me on! I didn't have anything at the time, and wouldn't be that stupid to try and run from the radio - regardless, I will never, ever "snitch" again.
If you want people to feel safe about snitching, then the cops have to go back to the "protect and serve" not "arrest anyone they can, and LOOK for shit". You don't give an 83 year old lady a speeding ticket for going 2 miles an hour over the speed limit, caught in a speed trap. You don't be a hard ass and intimidate people your supposedly "serving".
If you want people to "snitch" then win the damn trust back! The cops are worse in my book than any thug, the thug will kick your ass, threaten you and move on - the cops will "find something", throw your ass in jail where you will kindly get raped for the rest of your term, or in the very least you'll be fighting for your life a hell of a lot more than you would in the real world.
And for the record, I'm your average blond haired, blue eyed, caucasian dip shit that lives in the nicer areas, or tries to at least - I'm far from any gangbanger and don't dress like it. Although I'm quickly catching on to why minorities complain about this crap.
Did you ever think that maybe it's the irresponsible and unreliable people who are the ones who smoke pot all day?
I'd have thought that with all the slashdot readers who are techies, I wouldn't see so many comments that show a poor grasp of the difference between cause and effect.
You are welcome on my lawn.
that if the Supremes say that green is in fact red, it's true?
BS, and BS to Wickard v Filburn, too. We are not a nation of law, and haven't been for many years. It's all a disingenuous, self-serving scam to keep the proles in their place.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Correlation != Causation.
I smoke pot REGULARLY as a medical user. I don't forget a damned thing except maybe where the hell I put my keys. I'm on time for all appointments (And on-time is 30 minutes early for me,) and I never slack off until ALL WORK IS DONE.
But then again, I'm the sort of person that's in so much pain I CAN'T function without the pot (and I'm 100% opiate intolerant, NSAIDs do not work, and cocaine-based drugs make my heart race so hard I collapse.)
Where'd that anecdotal evidence of yours go, now?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Well, I'm not the poster you are replying to, but: The argument in favor of drug bans is that drugs are harmful. There are two main arguments against drug bans (1) drugs are not harmful (either a particular drug or usage pattern) or no more harmful than legal drugs like alcohol. (2) people have the right to make decisions, even bad decisions. Regardless of the harmfulness of drugs we should not prevent people from doing something to themselves.
Argument (1) is an evidence based approach (2) is a philosophy based approach. So in making a point, I might use the worst case scenario: they will ruin their lives/die. It doesn't make any difference to argument (2) which seems to me, then, to be a stronger point for a free society. When you have the leaders of your country, presidents and legislators, who have taken drugs and still reached (depending on your POV) the top of society it is also time to acknowledge point (1).
"Don't take that stuff son, it'll ruin your life. Why, I know a guy who started smoking that, and he became president of the US! Just say no."
http://marriedmansexlife.com/