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".
OMG, feds read slashdot? *hides*
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.
its whatever local company they contracted to do that business. they contract different companies in every country.
Read radical news here
how true!
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".
I am by no means well versed in this area of law. However, it makes no sense to me whatsoever how under state law, the growing of pot is legal, but illegal under federal law. 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?
It works like this, if the state has no law against it and policies in place, the majority of law enforcement (state troopers, county sheriffs, city police, etc.) don't bother you. The only way to get "busted" is if the FBI, BATF, etc. discovers what you are doing and goes after you. There is little the state can do to prevent that, but it makes it highly unlikely you will be arrested because the feds don't have the manpower.
In at least one instance California was distributing medical marijuana through the state police, since state police are immune to federal prosecution for possession of illicit drugs in the course of their duty. Basically, it is just a way for a state to be as uncooperative with federal laws they disagree with.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
... to get to our property.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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, 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/
They don't always...but then the government does it for them.
rj
How about the other argument against drug bans: that banning the drug creates more harm than it removes. A major harm caused by banning drugs is that producing those drugs becomes a criminal activity, and so naturally criminals take over that activity. Another problem is that banning drugs causes the price of the drugs to go up dramatically. This makes drug users spend more of their money on drugs. The money goes to the criminals producing, importing, and selling the drugs. These criminals don't pay tax on their income, and use their money to protect their business, by corrupting law makers and law enforcers.
This is a major harm to society caused by banning drugs. Criminals can now get lots of money without much effort, or much risk. If the drugs were legal, the price would be much lower, and the money would go to legitimate businesses. Think about that, by banning drugs, we make criminals rich and powerful.