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."
Don't snitch.. online.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Where is the Google link then?
I need "directions to this location".
Well that was awfully nice of you to post about it on a prominent website.
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.
How can a state tell you that you are allowed to violate a federal law? And, what happens if the feds do raid? Would you be able to make an arguable case in court on the premise that the state in which you reside said it is ok to violate the federal law?
Hoping someone can shed a little more light on this.
BrickerEnterprises.Com - Innovation at work
its whatever local company they contracted to do that business. they contract different companies in every country.
Read radical news here
And this article is about what? Are you (1) complaining about Google trespassing, (2) about pictures taken being incriminating for civilians, (3) about the preponderance of pot in the locales mentioned, or (4) an indirect pot shot at drugs not being legal?
Drugs are social nuisances and cause problems. While I wouldn't like Google people walking over my back yard, I don't see why revealing where growing of illegal drugs take place is a problem.
As someone from outside the US, I'm a bit (actually, rather much) stumped by the claim
that the legal status of doing something depends on who looks at the matter.
I know there are differing laws about some things e.g. in Germany on state and federal level,
but there are exact procedures on how to resolve such a conflict of law, and by result, in a single
place, something is either legal or not.
Completely independent from whether a matter is handled by state or federal police.
I would have suspected the same here: That in one place, doing $foo is either legal or not.
That this may very well differ from the legality of doing $foo in another place.
But that it would never be legal or illegal in a single place, just depending on who checks on people doing $foo.
Can anyone explain that please?
... great, CNN has iReporters, now it seems that we have iCops as well ...
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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's a clue: not all laws are just, and not all laws should be obeyed.
"I found at least one instance where they drove well unto private property, past a gate and no trespassing sign, and took photographs."
This is "breaking the law" too in america, am I right ?
Trespassing at the private property, taking pictures, and putting it on the web for whole world to see without permission.
Anyway, would have, not would of. Sheesh.
Or when breaking the law, don't do it in plain sight.
Good thing you didn't go making a news posting about this and have thousands of people combing the pictures for illegal activity.
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".
Thing is, though, it's legal for the state but not for the nation. Who do you listen to?
I know more than you drink.
Wait, is this Slashdot that I'm on. I thought we would be raising an outcry for google encroaching on private property?
Let's prioritize. Start with dealing with those who are "breaking the fucking law" forbidding wars of aggression and torture. Then let's go after the ones swindling people out of billions. Then smaller-scale violent crime. Once we're done with those problems, maybe we can go after a few granola-munchers growing pot in their backyards, unless by that time the US gets its collective head unwedged and repeals the inane and repressive laws against cannabis.
Incidentally I'm not a cannabis user or grower. I don't like the high and make my money in other ways. I'm for legalization because it's the right thing to do, not because there's anything in it for me personally.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Actually for incidental exposure in public you don't need a model release. Otherwise you would be royally screwed anytime you took a shot in a stadium, at the beach, etc.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Well, besides the fact that anyone who's got no job, an internet connection and a hankerin' for some weed can just go google-maps-weed-hunting... I think "snitching" is the best form of neighborhood control.
... all it takes for evil to win, is that good men do nothing.
If someone is doing something that isn't right, and you don't stop them, you're basically helping them do their incorrect business.
Not that pot is 'evil', but
Or at least work to get the law repealed. Selective, arbitrary enforcement merely creates contempt for all laws.
Don't forget the National Search Agency [sic]. I hear they have quite the computational capability.
Unless the state is going to defend you when the feds come, I'd listen to the feds.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
the massive amount the cops are spending is doing nothing to discourage use, and all that really happens is that:
A: Drug lords can make massive amounts of cash while engaging in very shady practices
B: People's lives are ruined because they were caught setting small amounts of plants on fire(meanwhile idiots light up massive amounts of the legal plants in giant bonfires are a risk to themselves and others and yet go unpunished)
C: Massive amounts of tax payer money are wasted chasing the former, and if they find them, even more is wasted putting them in a prison where they are no longer productive to society and branding them with a record that will cost them even more(and probably cause them to go from productive to an even BIGGER burden on society)
Legalize it for use in homes, but make sure if someone is stupid enough to do it and go out driving that you bust their asses.
Monstar L
I take it you missed the recent article posted on /. discussing the fallacy of the "why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?" argument. Basically the article pointed out that the argument uses a crappy, narrow definition of "privacy." But I'd like to add a point that the article may not have emphasized enough: somebody's status as a criminal has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether they have a right to privacy. This is an incredibly important part of privacy law. I'd recommend Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" to you because it gives a great demonstration of how that argument can be abused (and how it WAS abused, in Stalinist Russia). If we can justify a breach of privacy by calling someone a criminal, then all we have to do is make a criminal out of everyone whose privacy we'd like to breach.
Thing is, though, it's legal for the state but not for the nation. Who do you listen to?
How likely is it that the feds would contravene state law on state territory by arresting law abiding (from the state's perspective) citizens? On a practical level, that's what it comes down to. There are so many laws, many more designed for the benefit of corporations than citizens, that which laws you obey and which you break comes down to an assessment of risk.
The phrase "We are a country of laws" is essentially meaningless now. Ethics and morals are becoming exclusively the province of the individual, so here's hoping individuals remain good people for the most part.
Loose lips lose spit.
What I want to know is how in the hell did we get to the point of allowing any governmental body to declare a plant that grows normally in nature to be illegal on the grounds that it is bad for us? Sticking a knife in my eyes or eating poisonous mushroom or rubbing poisin ivy all over my body is bad for me too, you know. Do I need a f*cking federal law for that? I don't think so. I am tired of people being so complacent about their liberty as to allow the government to walk all over them.
We should vote every politician out of office who supports these kinds of dumb laws that infringe on the people's freedom or insult their intelligence.
It's not black and white, and by treating it as such you risk disingenuousness. In this case there are different laws on the books for the same thing at the municipal, state, and federal level. Why? Because it's a hotly contested issue, which also means that some people feel strongly enough about it to put themselves at risk. Possession of even a decent amount in CA is a civil offense. A parking ticket. You don't have any of those, do you? Are you confident that everything in your house is up to building code?
Some people don't agree with having penalties for thoughtcrime. Some just think they can get away with it. I realize that laws are not "made to be broken", but those who defended the status quo during Jim Crow or Prohibition became history's losers, and rightly so. Plus, consider again the loss of privacy. I trust the system more than I trust some self-appointed vigilantes with internet access. But if this makes mainstream news, they will be judged and sentenced long before any cop arrives at their place.
Funny thing about the law: it applies to companies like Google just as well. Their quest to index the universe is at odds with people's right to privacy. Too bad. Find a business model that doesn't involve breaking the law. This is not the first of these stories. They lose the benefit of the doubt. I am left with one conclusion: that there's an unspoken rule for these drivers: "ignore those gates and signs, or we'll replace you with someone who will."
A law doesn't get tested in court until someone is charged with having broken it, and contests its constitutionality.
This space available.
Here's a clue: not all laws are just, and not all laws should be obeyed.
Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.
But not exclusively. We also have the executive branch, not to mention simple civil disobedience.
Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.
No they are not. The courts implement, interpret, and enforce laws. They do NOT have the role of declaring a given law as being unjust. At most, judges can make legal comment with regard to inconsistency of a particular law or other problems of a technical nature. And the dear public sitting in the jury benches has no freedom to comment on the law whatsoever.
Politicians are of course totally unable to repeal unjust laws. The bribe money is stuffed far too high up their arseholes.
Which leaves us with public disobediance and concerted pressure on corporates as the only means of "dealing with unjust laws".
Yes! And does so quite well :)
Many states spend huge sums, often in the millions of dollars, to seek out and eradicate wild, naturally growing cannabis. And they still can't beat cannabis - much of it keeps growing back no matter what they do.
What's so sad, is that many governments spend lots of money in their quest to eradicate cannabis, which directly kills no one ... and yet they spend little to nothing to eradicate truly deadly weeds, such as Jimson Weed (Datura stramonium), which directly kills numerous people, often teens, every year. The drug war is all about money and control, not safety ... but I digress.
Ron
I think I have a Slot 1 Mendocino somewhere in the junk drawer. Might as well overclock it to death and get experienced with the magic smoke...
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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.
I don't see dope mentioned anywhere in what you cite.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Here is an interesting idea: Don't break the fucking law.
Dude, like have some pot and lighten up
Table-ized A.I.
Generally speaking, things you do behind fences and no trespassing signs in the middle of nowhere aren't "in plain sight."
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
You said it ... those kind've speling mistakes make me loose my temper.
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
Doesn't marijuana grow naturally? How can the mere presence of plants, unless they were obviously cultivated, be illegal?
I agree but whether or not it is being cultivated is none of their damn business, IMO. People, whether in a democracy or a dictatorship, should resist such blatantly fascist intrusions upon their liberties. After all, we are told that we wage wars for the sake of liberty, right? How free are you if you cannot have a natural plant in your backyard?
Ah yes, good old "If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide" rears its ugly head again. It was wrong the first time it was said and it's wrong now.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.
At least in the US, that is 100% wrong. Courts are for interpreting laws and dealing with conflicts, real and apparent, between various layers of the law.
Dealing with unjust laws is explicitly not part of their remit. A relevant example to this case: someone growing or selling medical marijuana, even when they have a municipal license and are paying all their taxes, may not mention the medical nature of their selling in federal court, because the law in question doesn't excuse that.
Dealing with unjust laws is the responsibility of the citizenry. And, supposedly, the politicians, but I think they've forgotten.
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
The war on drugs is a war on people. The drugs rarely actually get hurt.
Quack, quack.
The DEA undoubtedly has access to plenty of super secret spy satellites that would allow them to read the license plates on the trucks servicing the pot plants you claim can be seen by street view...in real time. Street maps is of no relevance in this instance.
Let's not. Dealing with war crimes takes years and some highly skilled prosecutors. Same with fraud. Dealing with pot takes much less time and anyone with basic education can do it.
Don't break the fucking law.
Look dickweed, I fuck when I want, whether or not there is a law.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Technically the knowledge that there was pot growing on the property would not be admissible in court, because the means of obtaining that information was illegal in the first place. Classic fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
(IANAL)
I don't think legalizing it goes far enough. There should be no laws about planting marijuana on your property whatosoever. Why? For the same reason that there is no law about planting roses or tomatoes or even poison ivy. Liberty above all. Either you live in a fascist country or you don't. We, the citizens, should not tolerate it, one way or another.
I would imagine you are referring to Google breaking the law by trespassing on someones property.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The good thing about total surveillance is that it will make the unjust laws stand out and expose them to the public.
The bad thing is of course is that many people will get into trouble before the laws are adjusted back to fit reality.
Dealing with pot takes much less time and anyone with basic education can do it.
True dat. I gots a 6th grade edujucashun and I gots no trouble dealing weed. Oh shit! Here comes the po po. I gots to run.
Here's another: if you break the law, even if you consider it unjust, be prepared for society to disagree with you and be man enough (most women already are) to accept the consequences.
Eventually, your sacrifice may convince others to do the same, and maybe the law will change. Until then, if you're standing on principle, stand on it.
If you don't want to be caught, and you don't want to face the possibility of punishment, don't break the law. If it's really an unjust law and you really believe in that cause, some jail time or a fine is worth it--or your advocacy of breaking the law "for justice" is hollow and worthless.
Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.
If jury nullification hadn't been all but eliminated, I might agree with you. If you want to get out of jury duty, all you have to do is display knowledge of the subject. This is in part because the right was abused in the racist South, but instead of moving to revoke the right of nullification in certain specific cases (e.g., battery, manslaughter, murder, etc.) the courts instead informally moved to eradicate jury nullification for all cases.
Unless you are knowledgeable about nullification, and can stealthily insert yourself into a jury, the courts are no longer capable of dealing with unjust laws.
Sadly, civil disobediance is beginning to look like the only real recourse for dealing with unjust laws.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
meh.
If Almight Google weren't involved this non-story wouldn't have even been posted.
Were that I say, pancakes?
Ha. Haha. HahahahahawhawhawHAWHAWHAWHAW.
Sorry. (Sniff. Heehee.)
Well, they'd like you to think so anyway.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Doesn't the 10th Amendment prohibit such federal laws?
Seastead this.
Releases are to avoid getting sued for violating someone's rights of publicity. You aren't required to do it because of some law. Do you really think Google is without lawyers? They obviously believe that they're within their rights to publicly post photographs of people who were photographed in public, just as I am within my rights to photograph people in public and post them. What I can be sued for is to use your likeness as the label for my products, as this violates your ability to control the use of your image for commercial purposes. Your photo sitting on the side of the road (harvesting pot plants, perhaps) sitting in a photo database that has to do with looking at a location and not to sell something? Google is doing Streetview perfectly correctly.
Federal law generally trumps state law.
Marijuana is a drug and is covered under federal law where it is illegal.
Growing and using marijuana is not a thought crime. Trying to lie and say it is a thought crime is disingenuous.
You are a lying, self-serving, asshole.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Yes, but that is a different subject
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The courts are the last line of defense against injustice. People have to stand up for their own rights first, and not expect others to do it for them.
May the Maths Be with you!
Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced he will not enforce any marijuana laws broken by officials in the Bush administration, citing executive privilege.
What's the view like from the Ivory Tower?
Can someone explain how something can be legal in a small area, yet illegal in a broader and encompassing area?
The other way around I can understand; a country saying "this is okay" and a town saying "fine but we're having none of that around here". That's a matter of more fine-grained definitions, but what's described in the blurb is rather going against what the higher-ups are saying. Or not? Enligten me, please. :)
"Good news, everyone!"
U.S. states are not just jurisdictional division. They're actually quasi-sovereign entities, with their own laws, their own courts, even their own armies. Only specific powers are ceded to the federal government.
That's the theory, and there's always been a conflict between the theory and the practice. (The worst war in American history was a very literal conflict over this very issue.) And over the years, "states rights" have steadily eroded. Those state armies, for example, are now known as the National Guard and for most purposes, they're effectively under the control of the Feds. There have been many changes to the Constitution that took rights away from the states, most notably the 14th amendment.
The end result is that you have a constant legal tug-of-war between the federal legal system and the state. In some cases, federal law always has the last word, but not always. In this particular case, there's no legal principle that says that the state has to help the federal government enforce its anti-drug laws. So if you have a stash of medicinal marijane and live in California, you can't be busted by a city, county, or state copy; you just show them your special ID card. But it won't protect you from the DEA.
Federal trumps state.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Nice, what is the view like from inside your colon?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
just a couple of major details.
The 10th Amendment, and the fact that the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to prohibit growing crops for personal use (or even for intrastate commerce), and the the 9th Amendment (growing plants/crops on one's own land is a completely natural right).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
... to get to our property.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Fail.
It is not fruit of a poisonous tree because the police neither asked nor encouraged google to take the pictures.
If the evidence of one crime is found in the commission of a second crime, that evidence can still be used because the evidence would be evidence of both the second and first crimes.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Irrelevant, actually. Plain sight only applies to police making searches.
If Google, et. al. trespassed, the images of the plants is evidence of the trespass. As long as the police didn't ask Google to go looking or to trespass and look, the evidence does not have to be in plain sight.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Everyone? Screaming? It was marked funny (although I'm somewhat puzzled that someone marked it insighful). The hysterics came when someone thought joking about the "Stop snitching" was in poor taste.
Well, comments on Digg ARE a good index of what sane people think of the story (~!) but I have to say, if 200 pounds of pot shows up on your doorstep by accident, you should be worried about who it was supposed to go to and what they're going to do to get it back. Smoking it yourself is among the dumbest of things you could do.
I don't think that is necessarily true even if people find out about the cases in which those laws are enforced. Even if it were, they probably won't find out; the increases in surveillance have been accompanied in many cases by gag orders to prevent anyone who finds out about them from relaying that information, and with secret proceedings to determine the outcomes, how exactly are these things being exposed? Although the gagging provisions in the PATRIOT act were struck down in 2007, no one outside the federal government has any idea what laws it was used to enforce. And it seems likely that there are still instances of covert surveillance underway which may never be disclosed, as the lines between domestic and foreign intelligence has been blurred so drastically over the past seven years.
No relation to Happy Monkey
Federal law generally trumps state law.
Marijuana is a drug and is covered under federal law where it is illegal.
Growing and using marijuana is not a thought crime. Trying to lie and say it is a thought crime is disingenuous.
You are a lying, self-serving, asshole.
It's not nearly that simple. It depends on who's prosecuting.
Trespassing is illegal too.
An exaggeration, I'll admit. My point was that it's often victimless. Where it's not, we have other laws (like DUI) to deal with those cases.
You don't know me, and you swear too much.
Federal trumps state
Not unless it's part of the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says that anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution is reserved to the states, and then the people.
Congress can pass an amendment making pot illegal (like they once did making alcohol illegal...it's why it had to be an amendment). The Feds can perform drug busts if the drugs cross state lines. Congress can do the speed limit and drinking age trick and withhold federal funds to california unless they change their laws. However, legally, they can't do shit if it is indeed legal in the state for those people to grow pot. If they try a bust, they will lose in court, which would be awesome to see.
Does google selects the actual streets, or only points a broad area for the driver to cover? If it's the latter then here's the top 10 reasons for the driver starting there:
I suppose that could mean that anyone who is caught by google streetview could claim unlawful search, since a non-government, warrentless group came onto private property out of public view to photograph a site which is then used as evidence. That might be sufficient technicality to get anyone who wasn't previously being investigated off the hook.
This is /. where if you're talking about the subject you're modded -1 Off Topic... I'm kind of amazed that the topic of this is still on the pot and not at all about the presumption of people acting on Google's behalf willfully violating the law and the rights of the land owners. That, right there, is as good a reason as any to hate Google.
Or to smoke pot and kind of giggle at it. Either works.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Naww,, but there is this program called CAMP.. and they fly all around in helicopters looking for pot.. Personally I doubt that street view is going to find much. Most people are not stupid enough to grow in plain view of even their private access roads.. It's grown away from you in amongst the Manzanitas.. and often on nearby public land.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
In America we are all guilty of something. The laws are too vague to not be.
Some years ago there was a movement that had the idea of rewording all the laws to plain English.
It is the duty of every citizen to be a law-abiding citizen (in most cases). In order to do this you have to know what the actual laws are and, as we all know, we don't. We need specialists, lawyers, to interpret them for us because they use archaic language that is not understood by the common citizen.
The gist of their ideals was that the laws would be written so that anyone could read their local tax code and actually understand it as well as all the other laws. I didn't expect it to go anywhere, the movement, but they had some interesting thoughts on the process that it should take and the reasons that it should happen.
Go take a look at your local laws for something that you probably "know." I'd suggest the actual laws for operating a motor vehicle. Should be no less than ten volumes of gibberish if you found the right office to read them.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
i would have called my friends, personally, because take-out is quicker than delivery.
yeah, and no snitching. . .
if it's an unjust law that harms more in enforcement than effects of the illegal act.
and yes, i know that depends on ones opinion of what is just and unjust.
to bring a much needed holocaust analogy, would you have snitched on a family of hiding jews?
ok, how about a family whose father grows pot in their basement? the forces that create the persecution are obviously hugely different, but you've got the choice to decide whether you think it's appropriate to destroy a family. the law already says it is, and will do so. so it's your call on whether it will happen.
what's your call?
- I'd prefer not to.
What happens when the laws are contradicting, and you must either break either one or the other?
You never come in to land.
Says who? Most drug users are perfectly normal when not using.
So tell me what keeps you from getting behind the wheel?
If the penalty is severe and social stigma high then what remains of your judgement will suffice. I can't speak to other drugs, but I know that I have never thought it was a good idea to drive while under the influence of alcohol, despite how it may otherwise affect judgement. I may not be able to stand up or figure out anything complicated, but I can still remember that I shouldn't drive a car.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
You mean, like trespassing on other people's property? Why aren't any Google people in jail now?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
IANAL, and I just might be wrong, but last I knew, it was only government entities that were bound by unlawful search claims.
OK, first of all no medical MJ patient in their right mind would grow OUTDOORS. The cops are not the only problem--there is also theft and even armed robbery.
Second, Google needs to be extra careful in rural areas. There are many places where the roads are privately owned but may not be clearly marked (there is one in my home neighborhood in unincorporated Sonoma county, in fact). The county knows about these full well (they won't pave them, for example). Google needs to check the land ownership records before they publish pictures... but this has nothing to do with pot growing, nor did TFA...
If you're high on drugs, can you be relied to make sane and logical decisions such as not driving?
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
well, according to slashdot...noaa says you can't take pictures of the EARTH with clearance. the whole EARTH. Google loses.
Federal officials lashed out at Google calling it "very irresponsible" to post detailed street view of these areas online. Their main concern is that the property owners may use the detailed street view to plot their getaway should there be a raid.
well sure, but still - someone has to be arrested first, which means it takes someone not obeying the law before it can be challenged.
This space available.
What statute do you use to make Federal law trump that of State or Local in this particular situation?
Is it prohibited using the Federal Legislature's Commerce Clause? If so, then why did the Prohibition of Alcohol movement use a Constitutional Amendment (18th) instead? How do we reconcile the Commerce Clause with the 9th and 10th Amendments? There are just too many questions that no one in a position of power wants to, or is able to, answer.
These arguments aside, I would like the government to at least present scientific data and studies that back up the reason to ban marijuana. If the case could be made for the ban, there wouldn't be as big of a counter movement. (I am not a smoker, toker, drinker, etc. I am not pro- or anti- drugs. Given valid evidence and studies, I would like us to be able to have a rational, national discussion.)
I had to tell Google to GTFO my property. They came in past a no trespassing sign and started taking pictures.
How about they start by not breaking the fucking law that protects my property?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
uh, yeah, either that or look for pit-bulls. If weed were legal, we wouldn't need pit bulls....
If this trend keeps up it will be only a matter of time before restaurants start handing you a joint with your menu.
You got it completely wrong. If this keeps up, it's only a matter of time before you check into a hotel and there's a hooker with coke on her tits waiting on your bed.
Actually, you are wrong about constitutionality isuses. Laws were passed that defined drugs that were illegal in the United States. The laws written and defended using the both the Commerce Clause (transporting across state lines) and the General Welfare clause.
There is no problem reconciling the Commerce clause with either of those amendments, especially the 10th because it is a power delegated to the United States.
You don't seem to have a very good grasp of what the Constitution actually says.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Please explain in detail how this law is not just.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Do you have proof that they broke the law?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Dealing with pot takes much less time and anyone with basic education can do it.
so are you saying that american law-makers don't possess a basic education?
do not read this line twice.
I don't know for certain that they trespassed.
So you have some preconception about the good guys to whom you give the benefit of the doubt for a crime you think isn't that bad (trespassing), but you automatically assume the bad guys have broken the law for a crime you consider heinous (growing) and you feel the need to admonish them even though you don't really know who they are. I'm wondering why you have a need for villains--what purpose do they serve for you?
Just callin' it like I see it.
"I like my privacy, and this feels like an invasion of that," said Janet Tobin, who lives on the property. "My friends already know how to get here. I don't need the whole world coming to my door."
Honestly this woman is so stupid she has no expectation to privacy. Now anyone can Google her name and find her dumbass.
Janet Tobin, I have news for you, no one is coming to your dam door, your a nobody.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I don't care what Google wants to take pictures of. I think it is dead wrong. It is an invasion of privacy in my view. I don't like satellites taking detailed pictures of my property and publishing it to the word. It seems just damn invasive. I think Google Earth and Street View should be shutdown and taken off line FOREVER! This is coming from a guy who thinks government should be minimal at best, but this is an infringement on my privacy and the law should take action against these offenders and any alike. Government should also be limited in using these privacy infringing devices as well.
My questions now are:
(1) How much time do they spend actually looking at what they have photographed, before making it available online?
(2) What would be the most embarrasing thing (for them to photograph and use) that I could "plant" in my yard for them, for "next time"
(3) If there will be a "next time", when?
I see a potential for some real fun here.
-NK
Did you get those last two mixed up in order? I think heroin is MUCH worse than cocaine, at least from an addiction point.
Most people I know never got hooked on cocaine, but, I think most people that try heroin once or twice have a VERY good chance on getting hooked.
Out of all the people I've known that did coke...only two I ever met developed a problem, and both of them kicked it...only one of those really had any difficulty kicking it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As far as I know, heroin is addictive but not toxic. If you overdose, you essentially relax so much that you don't breath and/or your heart stops beating, but if you are kept alive there will be no tissue damage etc. That's why some people would regard it as less harmful. The whole issue of "how harmful" is often pretty subjective.
Personally I consider the compulsory state education system to be doing far greater damage to society than drugs would if legalized. I'm not putting that topic up for debate, just illustrating the subjectivity of opinions on "harmful", as obviously my opinion would meet with widespread objection.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Maybe the cops have become more annoying to parts of society than the criminals.
I remember reading about someone speaking on the 'Stop Snitchin' campaign. His point was that people on the street should stand up for what's right and be ready to snitch on one of their own -- the day the cops themselves are willing to.
A drug ban would only work if every single psychoactive substance was banned.
I still don't think it would work, although I suppose that depends on what you mean by "drug ban works". (What do you mean by "is")
In my view the principle issue is liberty, not health. I remain to be convinced that banning every psychoactive substance would produce liberty for the members of a society, since if you want to be free from drugs, you can achieve that without a ban, if you want to be free to take drugs, the ban removes that freedom. I have no desire to force good health on others, nor to pay for their bad health caused by personal choices they make.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
You might be surprised how little evidence there is to support your belief. You should read about Rat Park.
Did you even read the fucking article, you worthless turd? No, I guess not. The article makes it quite clear that they trespassed on private property.
Look in the mirror you fascist fuckstick!
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
Actions speak louder than words and this action scream out loud.
What part of DO NOT TRESPASS do these people not get?
They get it all right, but they don't care. For them, it's enough to say "call us and complain" or "we'll remove it if you sue us". Well, what about the giant yellow and black ROBOTS.TXT in front of my property? Why isn't that good enough?
They want to be trusted with your email, your photos, your files, the details of your life. They want to intrude and invade. They will tell you that you should trust them and let them in because they do no evil. Google is god, they would never do bad and they just store data, they never use it.
Well fuck you Google, you are evil because you don't give a shit about the harm you may do, only that you can get what you want. Just another rich greedy asshole out to make a dime at someone else's expense. Learn some respect for privacy, I know it may be hard since you as a company hate that word.
RAEP!
Maybe the only alternative for someone with as few options as you.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Bunch a whiny babies who can't think for themselves.
...as long as the police don't tell them to do it (or can fake that they didn't), it's addmissible in court.
What do you want to bet that he got lost on purpose. Where's Cheech?
Personal webpages and wikipedia supposedly as evidence... try the fuck again.
There was a story on Digg about 200 pounds of marijuana that went to the wrong address, and the recipient immediately called the police. Everyone there was incredulous. Someone remarked that the only phone call they'd make would be to Pizza Hut.
Everyone there is an idiot. Don't you think the sender/receiver is likely to want it back? And that they might well use deadly force to get it?
200lbs = 90kg. If you calculate that using the police's idea of "street value", it's worth at least $100bn. Unless you are a gangsta with your own private army of thugs, the police are your only option.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Hide your daughters!
Best hide your sons, too.
people should be growing marijuana anyways. if you have nothing to smoke you should be worried. (fixed)
What about the good old
"All Tresspasers will be shot with fully automatic assault rifles bought for hunting"
while you're at it. I hear that's quite a politically correct view in parts.
I really do not care for people telling me what plants I can or can not grow in my own garden. That's just plain ridiculous.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Wow, you are so brave on the internet. Why don't yo post your address and then we will see how brave you will are.
after it posted to the Web in June thousands of detailed photos taken along county roads. ...
Sonoma County's most isolated roads and look at some of its most secluded homes.
Isolate and secluded does not also mean "owned by the county".
I also notice that in this part:
Up a single-lane road outside Freestone, Google went past a gate with a "no trespassing" sign and captured images on private property. Several residences can be seen on the property, including an up-close shot of someone's living room window.
there is no quote from the residents, nor any mention of the reporter talking to them. For all you or the report knows, permission had been given. In fact, without mention of who owned the property or where it is, there is no way to verify the claim in the article. In fact, that property could be owned by Google, or the person who drives the car.
Oh, and look up the word "fascist" in a dictionary, dumbass.
I really, really hate your freedom
Yes, I know. That is what makes you a worthless, self-righteous, totalitarian who would murder anyone who disagrees with anything you say or whom you just don't like. What is it like being the same as Pol Pot, Stalin, Milosevic, Hussein, and Idi Amin? What is it like knowing you are just like all the vicious murders who take power?
You talk like you hate those sorts of people, but I think you only hate them because they are just like you. Or, is it just because you can't rape and kill? I bet that is your fantasy, to have your own rape room where you can rape, torture, and murder those who disagree with you. It seems about your speed.
Now, why don't you take that shotgun you mentioned in your other post and blow whatever you use for brains out.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Now that's just silly. They try to keep the bigass guns IN FRONT of them.
Its just a shame that nobody has ever been arrested for growing pot, thus we've never had a chance to challenge that law.
Well, I don't know about the other ones, but Erowid isn't generally known as a drug scare site. Rather, it has material from several sources. In any case, it definitely doesn't count as an anti-psychoactives propaganda site.
If you are out in a park and I, as a photographer, take your picture and later see you were smoking crack in that picture, I could turn it in to the police and it could be used as evidence. If you have pot growing in your window, visible from the road, I could take a picture and send to the cops. Same thing, visible from a public place. Chances are, though, I would just shred said pictures unless the guilty party was handing out the drugs to 3 year olds or something.
In this specific incident, the parties involved should just sue Google for breach of privacy. Google could turn over pictures to the police, so get the pictures out of Google's possession. File a suit and get the pictures destroyed before that has a chance to happen. And, for added measure, get a punitive damage attached to 'failure to destroy the pictures.' Then, if Google gets a court summons to turn over pictures that had been destroyed, they will be paying for legal defense as well as data recovery.
At a stadium, the professional photographers do have a release from the stadium. The people there, in their contract for the ticket, gave the stadium owners the right to use their picture. All of this is because the stadium is actually private property.
At the beach, yes, you can take private snap shots for non-commercial use without a model release.
In this case, Google took the picture on private property, it is identifiable as that property, and they are using it commercially. 3 strikes.
Well, a fight with gravity maybe. Gravity tends to win, especially when taking down baked stoners.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Google's Streetview is not what I'd call incidental exposure. Their photo of your property IS their product. Without it, they have nothing.
A property release is required when the property is a dominant subject of a published work. Since each view is substantially a single property, or pair of properties, property owners may actually have a case for removal or compensation.
This being slashdot... Is this the so called Chewbacca defense?
Is Google using their own equipment exclusively, or are they partnering with others who are doing similar work? My wife used to work indirectly for county auditors, and sometimes used photo vans. They had a rebuttable right to be on posted property--They couldn't open gates, but they could go past "no trespassing" signs (on a driveway) unless the residents specifically objected.
I don't like the high and make my money in other ways.
Translation: I'm a pimp.
Just reading the article and I wonder if this guy even did any research. Google does not do any data gathering for their maps or for streetview. They use third party companies for the content like navteq which actually provides the data to the majority of the GPS with system. And i think navteq outsources streetview to other companies. One of them is teleatlas.com. I saw the truck once and was hoping to see my car on the map but it never made it. http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/terms_maps.html
I work for a Big Telecom Company, and one of the things we have to do is push the LEC out to make repairs on their equipment. From fibercuts to dead smartjacks, our ability to function revolves around our ability to get telco onsite as quickly and easily as possible.
The customer NOC's often have no clue as to what kind of access hours the end user keeps, or even what sort of conditions there are, such as security gates. It's not that they don't necessarily *have* this info, it just takes them forever to find it. Add the fact that the NOC is also in Bangalore, and you've got a clusterf$ck.
Using Google, I can not only find the customer's address, I can also find their web page. From there, I can find the access hours, local contact and phone numbers. Sattelite view tells me what kind of place I'm sending telco out to. Military base, business park, rural area...you name it.
By switching to Street View, I can often identify the precise nature of the location, as well as any key landmarks that will help guide the field tech to the site. I've had to give a field tech step-by-step instructions more than once, too.
"No-no...turn LEFT at the red building with the white doors. THERE! That antenna tower, that's the one. The combo lock is on the gate...blah-blah-blah..."
I've also managed to scare the bejabbers out of a few CO techs and testers by telling them precisely where they are, right down to suggesting they get a relaxing cup of coffee from the Dunkin Donuts next door. And yes, I'm aware of the irony of that statement.
And sometimes, I can even use StreetView to determine business hours. Hotel? 24-7. Gas farm? 0730-1700. Government? 0800-1600. Military reserve depot? 0700-1530.
StreetView is a tool, just like a ballpeen hammer. And just like any tool, including a ballpeen hammer, it can be used for bad things.
[End Of Line]
google cant know where a local farmer's ranch starts and road ends. it publishes the photos that are delivered to them.
Read radical news here
You can thank the "liberal" justices of the Supreme Court (plus Scalia) for ruling in Gonzales v. Raich that growing marijuana on your personal property for personal consumption falls within the scope of the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.
Though this bit of caselaw was basically set some decades ago for different reasons, in more of an ends-versus-means gamble that turned out badly. In the civil rights era, "interstate commerce" was interpreted in kind of unlikely ways in order to give federal civil-rights laws effect, to e.g. consider a restaurant owner who has a single location in a single state to be engaged in "interstate commerce", using the somewhat dubious argument that some of his suppliers might buy things from out of state, making him transitively engaged in interstate commerce.
Given that precedent, liberal jurists now basically have to, and did, say that federal drug laws are okay.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Alas, am aware of all that. It's ridiculous on its face, though, as it was with inarguable obviousness not even an inkling of the intent of those who put together our government to begin with.
It would be as if to say that our then-founders, presently suspicious of the sorts of powers that unrestricted governments wield... English Monarchy dontcha know... would insert words into the Constitution meaning that "well, we just wrote all that limiting stuff, but if you can squeeze your idea even thinly into 'commerce' or 'general welfare' you can do just anything."
Preposterous. The very idea boggles.
Sadly, we don't really have a Constitutional government today in any real sense.
Amendments are no longer needed.
C//
Just as restaurants are responsible for following the health codes in place wherever they are located, Google is required to find out what's private property and what isn't for this project. Doesn't matter if it's hard or expensive, it's the cost of doing business. They don't get a free pass just because they made a good search engine. Restaurants don't get a free pass for not washing dishes if they make a good french onion soup.
restaurants are NOT responsible by the malpractice their suppliers do. if a supplier smuggles in foul flour, its supplier's fault.
dont be hypocritical.
Read radical news here
I grew up in Mendocino County.
Measure G passed in 2000. This is a county ordinance that allows for people to grow up to 25 female marijuana plants for personal use (i.e. not for sale) legally.
http://www.canorml.org/news/mendorelse.html
http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2007/apr/25/amma_press_release_victory_mendo
I'm not sure, but this ordinance seems compatible with the statewide Proposition 215. It is still illegal under federal law, of course.
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
do you know the contract google made with the subcontractors ? what if that responsibility was subcontractor's ?
Read radical news here
Well, I don't know about the other ones, but Erowid isn't generally known as a drug scare site.
I don't know - Erowid does have it's fair share of "I did pot, coke, mecaline, meth and acid within 4 hours" stories in the experience vaults. A fair bit of those should scare the hell out of anyone (and work as a great source for trolls)
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Now that's being loose with Os.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
it matters. google cant know where a local nevada/chinese/japanese farm plot starts and municipal road ends. yes, it absolves google from publishing those pictures.
google is only guilty if they do not withdraw pictures after the incident is discovered.
Read radical news here
a sack of flour is a compound substance that has exact formulae of components known.
yet, no restaurant is required to check every ounce of flour they use in their products. its the SUPPLIERS' DUTY.
it seems to me that you just want to bash google and produce exorbitant excuses for it. and for some reason youre posting anonymous but tracking the thread. really annoying.
Read radical news here
restaurant receives flour sacks with proper best before dates. its the supplier that is smuggling in bad flour. what happens ?
Read radical news here
There are flaws with this study: A drugs addictivness is dependent on a few things: The speed it passes the blood-brain barrier and attaches to the receptor, the firmness of that attachment, and the shortness of its half-life. Speedy and firm action causes a rapid and intense high, and short half-life causes rapid and intense withdraw.
In this study, the rats are given a supply of clean and opium-laced water, the latter of which, in addition to its bitterness, would probably cause more nausea then anything, so they'd probably opt for the clean water.
This would be like comparing the intense high of smoking verses that of nicotine gum. It would predict that people are less likely to become nicotine-addicted via gum. The same would be true for smoking crack vs. drinking water with cocaine in it. This also explains why cocaine and nicotine would be more addictive when smoked.
Additionally, the study's "results could not be exactly reproduced" so I don't know why he jumps immediately to the broad conclusion that drug-induced addiction is a myth.
And while promising and recent research shows that enriched environments help with brain disorders, the real world we live in is not such a utopia.
Obama said he would not have any more of the public's money wasted on raids over marijuana. Vote Obama! McCain is highly against medical marijuana whereas Obama is for it. I'd much rather put natural pain killers such as marijuana in my body than strange tablets I don't know anything about.
If you decide that drug-law is a states rights issue you allow Utah to make sale or possession of condoms a crime.
Modded troll, but damn, that's a good point.
You're right of course, but there is a difference between actual/direct cause and legal cause for the purpose of determining tort. If Google has a contract with these guys and knowingly turns a blind eye to any wrongdoing, then they're still on the hook. And this isn't the first one of these stories I've read about them trespassing. In food terms, if your supplier brings you soft cheese on a refrigerated truck, but their reefer fails and they don't tell you, you could try to pass the liability on to them. I have seen restaurants do this as a matter of course, regardless of actual fault, because the supplier is assumed to have better insurance. Anyway if they had a history of selling you spoiled cheese, and you served it in spite of the known risk, it's negligence at least.
I like Google but overall I think we should give individuals the benefit of the doubt and keep companies who make a living processing our information on a short leash. If they haven't done anything to respond to prior complaints, throw the book at them. If they are trying...well, it's a big undertaking, mistakes happen, but they can't just say "we hired them to do it" and walk away. Otherwise you could do whatever you wanted as long as you paid people to do it for you.
we dont know anything. we dont know whether there was an intentional wrongdoing on subcontractor's part even. or some employee sent to get pics of some place just have acted irresponsible. or anything else.
but we have a lot of preconceived judgment flying around about google in this thread, and in general discussion here. its the thing thats bugging me.
Read radical news here