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
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.
Anyway, would have, not would of. Sheesh.
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".
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
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
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."
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
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.
There are two sovereigns in play here, the regional California state government and the United States federal government.
California, the regional government, has indicated that it doesn't violate California law, in some circumstances, to grow marijuana. California based law enforcement is under compulsion by state law to go after people growing marijuana in these circumstances.
At the same time, however, there is a federal law that says that growing marijuana is illegal under all (I think, maybe excepting research?) circumstances. Federal law on this point preempts (trumps, overrules) state law on this point, thanks to the federal constitution.
So, because federal law preempts state law on this point, the activity IS illegal in California. Federal law enforcement (mostly the FBI) have the authority to, and will, enforce the law in California. California law enforcement doesn't care as much, and hence is laid back about enforcement. I'm under the impression that state authorities still do have the power to enforce federal law, but don't hold me to that point.
Now, there's also municipal (town, city, county) level legislation and enforcement, which adds yet another wrinkle to this mess.
But yeah, in general, if the federal government makes something illegal, it's illegal nationwide regardless of what a state might say. The only impact of state legalization is that state enforcement will be non-existent for state laws and at least lax on federal law.
Did that help at all?
--
RumorsDaily
Dear neighbour, could you please tell me which laws from Brussels take precedence over national laws and which do not? The balance between state and federal government in the US might be unhealthy, but I'm not very reassured the EU is turning out to be any better.
Your pot smoking neighbour from the west coast (Holland, not California).
"Drugs are social nuisances and cause problems. " If everything that's a "social nuisance" and that causes problems is going to be a crime, there's not a lot left we'll be able to do. Just about EVERYTHING is a nuisance to someone.
This space available.
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
You are correct but there is a difference here between something being illegal and criminalized. If our ferderal government makes growning pot a crime, its a crime everywhere include the whole of CA. Now CA can decide its not going to enforce that federal law, or enforce it only conditionally, provided the codifiy the conditions they will enforce under ( still have to have due porcess and equal protection ).
So you can be growning pot on your front porch in parts of CA and if a local cop rolls down the street he may very well do nothing, if a federal agent rolls down the street he can snap the cuffs on you. The reality is though in the United States it is local law enforcement that does most of the enforcing . Federal Agents don't work a beat, as a rule. The investigate and go after priority offenders, the guy growing fields of it or transporting it across multiple state lines running some sort of distribution network, not the guy who takes a hit or two from the stuff grown in his closet after work, that person will never be a federal priority.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced he will not enforce any marijuana laws broken by officials in the Bush administration, citing executive privilege.
... 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.
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."
The supreme court has held that the interstate commerce clause gives congress the authority to regulate wheat grown on a farm for consumption on the same farm. That case would probably be decided differently if brought to the court now, but it's still the law of the land (and frequently tested on the bar exam). The name of the case escapes me or I'd give you a citation.
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...
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
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.)
Federal law on this point preempts (trumps, overrules) state law on this point, thanks to the federal constitution.
What part of "enumerated powers" as well as the 10th amendment (sort of a "we really meant it!" amendment) do you not understand? Why not actually try reading your Constitution. Powers are only assigned to the Federal government by enumeration in the Constitution (expressly), otherwise powers are held by the States or the People. See the 10th.
C//
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.........
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.
No law from Brussels takes precendence over national laws of the EU member countries. The reason is simple. The EU cannot make _laws_, only _directives_.
These do obligate member states to pass laws to the effect of something, but implementations vary very very widely: for instance Italy is infamous for wiping their arses with just about every directive that they don't happen to like (though they mostly have to do with Berlusconi's corruption rather than something righteous like legalized pot). This is the reason why e.g. laws passed in accordance to the EUCD can be very different in their anti-circumvention clauses across the EU members.
Its just a shame that nobody has ever been arrested for growing pot, thus we've never had a chance to challenge that law.
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.
Now that's being loose with Os.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.