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."

7 of 668 comments (clear)

  1. Re:In other words by IvyKing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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".

  2. Re:Small Detail: Growing is Still a State Crime by slugo3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Notice that Google doesn't cover Washington by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Don't snitch.. by penguinbrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. So your point is... by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  6. Re:Don't snitch.. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  7. Re:Snitch! by rohan972 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."