Slashdot Mirror
German Photog Wants to Shoot Buildings Excluded From Street View
crf00 writes with this report excerpted from Blogoscoped: "'Spiegel reports that German photographer and IT consultant Jens Best wants to personally take snapshots of all those (German) buildings which people asked Google Street View to remove. He then wants to add those photos to Picasa, including GPS coordinates, and in turn re-connect them with Google Maps. Jens believes that for the internet 'we must apply the same rules as we do in the real world. Our right to take panoramic snapshots, for instance, or to take photographs in public spaces, both base laws which determine that one may photograph those things that are visible from public streets and places.' Jens says that for his belief in the right of photographing in public places, as last resort he's even willing to go to jail. Spiegel says Jens already found over 200 people who want to help out in this project and look for removed locations in Google Street View, as there's no official list of such places published by Google."
This doesn't seem to be a "The man is restricting our rights", more of a "people are nicely asking for some attempt at privacy", and this asshole (Jens Best) wants to say "FUCK YOU, I'm going to go against you because I can, even though you were nice enough to ask otherwise"
If the man wants to tilt at windmills, I say let him.
For those of us who don't read German fluently click here
The manually taken photos were of higher quality, and more detail than the Google streetview ones. Then the request to remove from streetview........ could result in more detailed imagery of the area being posted to a place where more people will notice it
(Since streetview is so large, and has so many images.... a picture of an obscure place would probably not be noticed by many people, let alone get any attention or concern)
Microsoft did a while ago a google street view like app, combining photos from end users from that location. The end result is the same for the ones concerned about privacy, but the source is different. This people want to do something similar, regarding what got censored in street view. Where you draw the line between the right of privacy and the right of using a (geotagging) camera to take out your own photos and publish them? Should geotagging cameras be banned or required to not give precise locations? And if you add to the mix foursquare and facebook places things gets worse.
The "Google Opt Out Village" was disturbing enough.
This Google mafia stuff is really getting quite frightening.
Just because someone doesn't want the building on street view is no reason to shoot it. What's next, hand grenades against people complaining about Google's privacy practices?
I suppose let the buyer beware... once you ask Google to remove your place from streetview, make sure to wear a bullet proof vest at all times.
I can remember getting off the train at the Pentagon. I wanted to go upriver on foot to photograph the skyline of DC at night from across the river (don't ask me why -- ugly city). It didn't take too minutes before a Hummer came rolling out and a guy in a gun turret (gun pointed at me) told me to go away and not take any photos.
Like it or not, some really stupid rules -- and even just really stupid etiquette -- governs what you can and cannot photograph.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Yes, but how far did you push back when you were challenged?
It's really pretty clear that a photographer has certain rights to shoot photos anyplace in public in the U.S.A. Government has often tried to intimidate photographers, under the guise that "national security" demands they cease, or alternately, lower-level security protests under false claims that some "policy" was violated.
The Amtrak photography incident comes to mind: http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/
A good guide to your REAL photographer's rights can be found here: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Having a gun pointed at you is a pretty strong intimidation tactic, yet if you're confident you're in the right, you can still stick up for your rights in that situation. Some soldier driving out to meet you in a Hummer is probably NOT prepared to fire a weapon at a civilian photographer. WAY too many consequences for an action that extreme. So you *could* have let them arrest you and take your camera, rather than complying ... and you'd have a really GOOD chance of coming out the victor.
But let's face it.... that skyline photo probably wasn't something you wanted badly enough to fight for it.
Our right to take panoramic snapshots, for instance, or to take photographs in public spaces, both base laws which determine that one may photograph those things that are visible from public streets and places.
Is a photo of your lawn, outside of home, and garden a private affair? When people drive by your home do you chase them away like a barking dog? No (reply if you do). Then why should you shoo away the Google car?
OK. But does that give you the right to aggregate those photos, organize them by location, creating a photo map of the entire planet?
On the one hand: Location based services are increasingly being incorporated into photographic devices. It's only a matter of time before the planet is completely photo-mapped with location information. Attempts to prevent this are only by scaremongers who have an idealistic view of privacy.
On the other hand: People have a right to privacy and it's unreasonable for one corporation to destroy it.
That is what this guy basically is. There is a good change he will run foul of the law in addition
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I'm getting popcorn.
This level of cognitive dissonance in the libertarians is going to be amusing.
After all who can say no to the photographers right to take pictures in a public place, but who can say no to someone's right to keep the front gardens off of a publicly accessible mapping system.
(to the rest of us, we know this guys just being an arsehole)
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
...it is about not being a douche bag.
Really, it isn't illegal and that isn't why Google removes them. He isn't going to get arrested so his willingness to have that done is irrelevant. What he is doing is being a a major asshole and justifying being proud of it under some "information wants to be free" meme.
My address, phone number, and a great deal of other information is certainly public knowledge - one can look it up on the internet (and I even use an abbreviated version of my real name so it isn't even that hard), yet I still wouldn't want all that attached to every post I made. There is a great deal of public information that we *all* would rather not telegraph in that well a concise and easy simple way to view. I'm willing to be this guy has a number of things about his life he considers private, is legally not, and would be royally pissed if people made a point of putting it on the internet. If someone walking down the raod asked politely to not be photographed few would call him a hero of anything if he then not only followed them taking all the photos he could but made sure that everyone singled them out to show what they would rather have private - no different here. I don't care about my picture being on Google Street View (well, other than the car was taking pictures when a police man was telling me to move my truck is parked in the road because someone up the street complained - we are on a dead end road. It's amusing as you can clearly tell I'm out on my front porch, the police car in the street, and the man in Blue talking to me - but then I find the thing more amusing than anything especially since I can pinpoint the exact time the car want by) and can't really see why anyone would care - but if they did it is called being a nice person to remove it.
If he wants to push a real cause go take photographs of military installations or secure places like nuclear power plants. But then there you are actually likely to have real consequences instead of just being a douche bag and making people mad. Plus it is places that are actually illegal to photograph, used to be legal to do so, and there is a great deal of debate on what should and should not be allowed. Peoples houses in mapping software? Not so much - as is he is simply trying to make himself feel better by doing something minor/worthless and rationalizing that it is somehow, in someway, actually edge and dangerous. Yea, go stick it to the man! Just wait until these people see their houses photographed on the Internet, that'll show !
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Phew! I had to read the subject twice. For a while there I thought Germans had started assassinating buildings.
I'm an amateur photographer and as far as I'm concerned this clown is making that harder. My personal ethics is I wouldn't want to publish photos that are unflattering or invade someone's privacy. On another level if people feel their ability to avoid being photographed and sense of privacy is being trampled on that just puts more pressure on lawmakers to raise the hurdles. In the worst cases it means photographers getting a kicking and having their cameras smashed just for carrying a camera.
Jens is just like that Wikileaks guy and taking too narrow a view of law and the real world. Usenet has almost entirely shut down so the trolls are looking to raise their game. This and other projects like this are just trolling. I don't care what the fancy arguments are. I don't care about your fucking "right" to poke your nose into whatever you want when you want. There's a limit and I wish idiots like this would stop getting publicity. This arguments are not new and these people are not special so why the hell are we even having this conversation?
Eat shit and die you fucking nutter.
Anonymous source close to the investigation says that Jens Best had choked on a wide angle lens that was shoved down his throat, his netbook was found firmly embedded in his rectum. There was much rejoicing.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Either way, Google is being nice by taking down photographs upon request. This is not a legal requirement, or censorship, or anything like that.
Not yet.
Clearly a lot of people felt strongly enough that this sort of activity constituted some sort of invasion of privacy to make the effort to ask Google to take the photos down. Clearly Google felt there was enough of a risk (legal, PR or otherwise) in not doing so that they instituted a policy to comply with these requests, and they have introduced various other policies for related reasons.
If people like this Jens guy won't voluntarily respect that and want to deliberately upset all those other people just because they can legally do so today, then the law can always be changed tomorrow to fix that problem. This is the basic flaw in the whole "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place" argument: it based on law rather than on ethics, and ignores the fact that laws are supposed to change as the world does, including keeping up with the implications of new technologies and how people feel about them.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Rights and so on aside, I had my house removed from Google Streetview because I owned a easily identifiable Rx7. This was an issue as the Rotary comunity is small in the city I live and my girlfriend at the time had a stalker.
He had some idea of where we lived, he knew what my car looked like, so I thought it was prudent to make it harder for him to find us. Obviously he could have found us if he tried hard enough, making it a simple process was something I was trying to avoid.
Sure, he could have driven up and down streets until he saw it, for practical reasons I knew he was unlikely to do so and also would have demonstrated to law enforcement he was an issue.
Should I be forced to show the front of my house? I don't think so. To me it is a question of ease of information getting out. I don't like the idea of all my information being out there requiring little effort to get. If you have a reason for the information, you can get it, otherwise why do you need it?
Personally, I think he shouldn't do it. Aggravating/stressing out people unnecessarily isn't nice regardless of whether their fears are irrational or not (except when treating a phobia).
I support a citizen's right to shoot. (I live in the U.S., not that that's relevant)
And I bet they'd just love if it photographers started sending unmanned drones zipping around the pentagon and major cities to take their photos for them - just like the military does when it wants something under surveillance (not always, but sometimes). Sure, it's impractical now - but that's where StreetView was a couple of years ago. We'll probably have affordable automated surveillance drones available to the general public in the next decade (I'd bet they could be affordably built by a tinker right now, but not affordably replaced as often as they'd need to be right now given the tendency of misguided authorities to confiscate/detonate anything they don't expect to see).
Hey, guess what? That's the exact same outcome as in this case: someone who wants an unreasonable level of privacy at the expense of society generally, says "don't you dare photograph this, photographer who I can identify!" (Google) and so then photographers that they can't identify start taking photos what they didn't want photographed, specifically because they said "don't" and tried to prevent people who had every right to see it, from seeing it.
The problem has always existed. You didn't care before. Now that you notice, you care; only because you notice, not because you should. But guess what? If you didn't make a big deal, you'd be a statistic. But because you want to be treated specially at the cost of society generally, you are treated with contempt by society.
Really, why should you get special treatment? And when you ask for it, why shouldn't you expect to be met with contempt by at least some of the rest of society (like the specific segment you affect the worst)?
Mmm Zerth, how I love thee.
Oh wait... that is what you look like naked... nevermind.
Anyone attractive^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H human around I can stalk?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Not sure what you're inferring from the summary, or implying with your "moral high ground" comment, but he's not trying to "stick it" to Google. Google have just complied with requests to remove the photographs. I think he's going to do what they can't(or won't) do, i.e. take pictures and link them to Google maps. If the same people want to request that those photographs be taken down, presumably Google won't be able to just remove them...as they are expected to do when it's their photographs and they're trying to avoid a lawsuit/Bad PR. Even if Google does take them down, he can still find some other way to do it..
Why Google removed them in the first place I have no idea. Photographs taken of anything from the street must surely be allowed on the grounds that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy if your building is situated on a public right of way?
Having a gun pointed at you is a pretty strong intimidation tactic [...] Some soldier driving out to meet you in a Hummer is probably NOT prepared to fire a weapon at a civilian photographer.
You'd bet your life on too many assumptions. You have no idea what are the rules of engagement. You have no idea what is there that they don't want you to take pictures of. You don't know if the soldier's trigger finger is itchy. And you don't know how the soldier perceives you - as a civilian photographer or as a terrorist who is about to blow up. Case in point - recent shooting of Eric Scott. Police was misinformed about the situation and came ready to kill, which they did.
German politicians seem to think that the best thing to do is to give each person total control over data about them... total control, except, of course where the German state is concerned. The German state collects and shares data about its citizens in a way that would be unacceptable in most other democratic nations. Germany is rapidly heading towards totalitarianism again.
That analogy doesn't work. Eric Scott had a gun. Doing anything with a gun while police are around is dangerous. A camera is not a gun. It doesn't threaten the life of police, and it probably won't get you killed, no matter what.
pics or it didn't happen
A camera is not a gun. It doesn't threaten the life of police, and it probably won't get you killed, no matter what.
That "probably" is not good enough - especially when dealing with soldiers. It only takes a misunderstanding. If a gun is pointed at you then a mechanical malfunction also can kill you. (That's why we are told to never point a gun at anything but intended targets, among other rules.)
I have noticed a common misconception regarding Streetview and Google Earth. People that are not particularly IT savvy (generally older or very young people) see these applications and immediately assume they are being watched constantly, rather than being photographed once in a blue moon. It seems the fact that these applications use animated transitions has the effect that users think "film" rather than "photo". This is a shocking scenario for them, even though it is false. After the feeling of shock/surprise, comes immediately the remark "big brother is watching you" (at least in the older generation). It often takes some minutes to explain how the *magic* is done, and generally the reaction can be reverted from "fear of being watched" to interest, and subsequently to an appreciation of usefulness. Unfortunately without a close relative or friend to guide/inform the user, a strong feeling of paranoia can take hold, resulting in a distaste and resentment for such applications. Whether there can be talk of an invasion of privacy, I would say no, but appreciate that others might have another opinion. The mention that these apps can be used for "stalking" suggests that even IT savvy slashdot readers might have mistakenly thought they could be used for surveillance, which they clearly can not.
I submitted this story earlier because I agree with Jens Best that it is wrong to claim that Google Street View is violating people's privacy.
A street is a public space. By definition, a public space is where you expect anyone can see what you're doing, and that includes taking pictures. Is it wrong for average joe to take a photo on the street which include random people and plate number? No. So then why should it become wrong when Google is taking photos on the street?
So what's wrong with that? Logically there's really nothing wrong. You only feel it wrong because you don't want so many people to see you appear on that street. But remember its a public space, whether you like it or not there're always people watching you.
Hence, the root of the problem is not Google taking your photo, but its that Google makes it easy for anyone in the world to see photos taken on a street. I'd stress it again, its EASIER now for anyone to see photos of a street - the problem is on the EASINESS, not publicness or privateness.
Generalizing the problem, we can see that the root problem is on the advance of technology. With the wide adoption of digital camera equipped smartphones, anyone has the right to take pictures at any public space. The technology also make it easier for anyone to see the taken photos on the Internet. Now as long as the photo is not taken at private space, logically there is nothing wrong for anyone to do that. Google is only pioneering the technology to make it extremely easy to view photos of any street.
But even if Google took down street view, it is definitely possible to have user generated street view in the near future, especially with the assist of technologies such as PhotoSynth and geo-tagging. The technology is improving in extremely fast pace, and it will be soon that we can even see entire reconstruction of streets and buildings become a practical reality. I for one definitely hope that such technology could arrive to my country so that I can preserve the heritage of my own town "perfectly" without needing to wait for Google to come to my country.
With CCTV and Street View already watching us all around, the bad news is that there will definitely be more digital eyes watching on us from anywhere at all. If people already complaining on Street View, can they even accept a decentralized peer to peer street view? Should they ban the collaboration website or ban users from submitting photos? Or would it become prohibited to even take photos using hand phone in public spaces? Or is every tourists and photographers are under obligation to blur people's faces and car plate numbers in every photo they've taken?
Although I certainly agree that Street View would not necessary bring no harm to anyone, but I also think that it is wrong to ban such activities for personal reasons. This is not a privacy problem, this is a technological problem. The only way to make it not happen is to prevent the technology to advance. The public space already has a meaning, that is, public. I think nobody should demand for privacy in a public space, and it does no good to impose any privacy restriction to spaces that are already public. Sure you can define more non-public spaces like in your own house and impose privacy restriction there, but street is public, so don't complain.
Finally, I'd like to make disclaimer that I'm writing this not because I'm opposing privacy. I'm just stating the facts here about the root cause of privacy problems and the real challenge on solving them. As far as I know, I think it is wrong to define the problem as "privacy invasion" and such, and I don't think there are any other ways to prevent that other than redefining the meaning of "public" and stop technology from progressing. If anyone else can come out with a better solution, I'd definitely more than happy to accept it. And I really hope my 2 cent can make people think more deeply on the problem and solve the root cause instead of bashing the surfaces by blaming the corporations.
Yes you are all welcome to take photo of homes. It isn't forbidden by the law in germany. But the main problem people sees, is 1) privat sphere, partially alleviated by the fact google remove face and auto number 2) the fact the raw data are saved in the USA where data protection law don't apply anymore and 3) the fact that as a database that means you can quickly scan for house in the comfort of your home(to steal for example) rather than have to be physically present and scan visually.
In the USA you might not even recall what that "privacy" and "data protection" means, but in germany it is certainly very actual.
On the issue , I am pretty clear personally. If the photo are to be used in a publication, we had pre-internet law which are OK. If the photo is OTOH to be used in a database in which they have no control contrary to german law, then I agree with the people. And that photograph is a ASSHOLE for intentionally going and taking photo of such homes.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
We are talking about buildings here. Not people. Buildings. If you don't want people to see your home then go live in a cave in the mountains. Otherwise welcome to society.
The thing I hate most about nerds is the "we must because we can" philosophy. Here's something else I can do: follow Jens Best around all day, and his mother, and his offspring, with a wide angle lens, an infrared camera, a highly sensitive microphone and a wardriving kit. Oh, I'm sorry, is your 7-year-old daughter pissing in her bathroom a private affair? Well, if she's going to radiate infrared onto the street I don't see why she has any more right to privacy than the wall in front of it, bouncing all that visible light.
And that saucy conversation you're having with your lover over VoIP, oh my! What's that? Well, next time you build your house, build it with perfect sound-proofing, peasant! See, if you speak to a public space - and you are doing so if you're speaking loudly enough for the sound waves to reach public space - then you have no expectation of privacy. You might as well point a megaphone at the street.
And, hey, should have picked a better WPA password! If you're going to pound my head with all those business contacts at 2.4GHz, you'd better expect me to record and publish them.
While we're at it, I hope you don't mind, but I have a rather nasty chronic and catchy cough. So all that sneezing I do within a few metres of you, and all that leaning I do on public property on the pavement outside your house - probably going to give you something. You see, it's legal, and I can physically do it, so I'm fairly sure it's a bold and honourable move to demonstrate my right to do so.
Finally, fuck the law. It doesn't matter that the EU has harmonised data protection laws relating to exporting of information which can be used to identify private persons. I don't like those laws, and I have the right to use private data about any individual in any way I like. I am irrelevant and conformist and it bothers me that no-one cares about anything I produce, but I don't have the strength to take it out on those who might actually be causing harm to me. So I'm going to take it out on the stranger on the street.
Support me, brothers, in my right to feel slightly better about my impotence by being an unproductive dick.
(But, goddammit, it's the State's duty to require ISPs to let angry geeks use their pipes the way they want without being monitored.)
Allow me to exercise my absolute freedom of speech, and say:
Jens Best is a rancid cunt. He can only achieve orgasm if he fellates dead, underaged goats.
Stick that up your ass, Mr Best.
John Best can take as many photos as he likes, geotag them and upload them to Picasa.
;-)
However, as I have declined Google the right to store or publish images of my house or car for the use of street view. It doesn't matter, if you can take as many such pictures as a private person and upload them, Google is not allowed to include them along the street view service (here in Germany that is).
So it really doesn't matter whether John Best wants to behave like a small tiny upset boy. Soon we will have forgotten about him again
Any property that was excluded from Street View should be photographed in unusual depth and the information should carry a tag that the photo is of someone who has reason to hide. Let the light shine deeply and brightly!
In Germany, there's the so-called freedom of the panorama, which means, that you're allowed to take pictures of the panorama in public places, which includes houses etc. However, that freedom is limited to a natural perspective, so you may take take the picture while walking down the street, but you may not use a stepladder or step on a car roof to get a higher vantage point. It's a very simple to understand and convenient rule about private space. If you don't want to be photographed in your garden, make the wall high enough that people passing-by can't see over it. If someone peeks over that wall and takes pictures, he's invading your privacy.
So what the photographer proposes to do is probably perfectly legal. With the Google streetview cars the problem is, they take the pictures from higher up than regular eye level, thus the freedom of the panorama doesn't apply to them and they get in all kind of trouble. There's another company (can't remember which one) taking pictures of streets, but they have mounted the cameras directly on the car roof, probably to avoid the problems Google has.
All in all, Google is in this mess in Germany because they didn't bother to check local laws and believed American rules apply everywhere.
When I am on the street, I did not trow away any rights. I still should be expected to have certain privacy. e.g. NOT have pictures of me place online.
Something like some countries have a law against taking pictures in a court or the full name of accused people. That does not stop freedom of the press. You can still send a journalist there.
And just because something is legal does not make it right to do so.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"Stop quoting laws to us. We have machine guns." (with all due respect to Pompey)
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Then you are a clueless twat.
They were asked to, and thought it might not be a good idea not to piss off potential customers by refusing. It's called civility, something a that seems to get forgotten around here with people blathering about their "rights".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Let's ignore the question of the legality of google streetview itself (as far as German law is concerned) for the moment.
This photographer doesn't just assert his right to take panoramic photos - he also asserts the right to completely override a person's wishes.
If someone registers NOT to have their home photographed, and he goes there taking photos and publishing them either way, is that the right way to deal with people?
I wonder - what are all the legal things I am perfectly in my right to do around him if he's out in public - particularly those he might not enjoy so much?
So, picture this 'A' asks for something NOT to be done.
B goes out of his way to do EXACTLY what person A asked NOT to be done.
(You might want to note, that the photographer did not have the intention to go and take photos of any of the buildings, UP UNTIL he finds them pixelated in street view).
Think carefully:
1) is B fighting for the freedom of the net? (or however he might want to justify his action)
2) is B just plain an , for decidedly overriding the wishes of those applying for their houses NOT to be pixelated?
Think very carefully - there are many things perfectly legal that YOU as a person might still not want done TO or immediately AROUND you - but it's exactly that, that the photographer is aiming for.
Can I make a painting of your house?
Can I write about your house?
Can I make a video of your house?
In all honesty I can't think of any piece of legislation anywhere (I have lived in several very diverse countries) where people have a right about what is in public view.
In some places you are not even allowed to put fences deemed to high in front of your house.
You may not want a picture of your house posted, but that does not mean you should be granted your wish. Freedom of expression is far more important than the misgivings of a few people about ... well, I don't know about exactly what frankly.
People over sensitive about this should frankly be ignored.
Surely you understand the difference between a one off picture of a place in full public view and a surveillance video.
What does "reasonable expectation" actually mean?
For most of the history of human civilization, the reasonable expectation was that, although people could see you in public, and in recent history, people could take photographs, there was never an expectation that it would suddenly be available for the entire world to see, forever, at a click of a button.
By all means we can debate the rights and wrongs, but let's drop this pretence of "reasonable expectation" - that's just a circular argument, as you're starting out with the assumption that it's reasonable.
Now, I think that this guy has every right to photograph in public. But that doesn't stop him being an ass.
What happened to Don't Be Evil? Just because you have a legal right to do something, doesn't mean it's always a good thing to do it. Equally, we have a right to criticise either Google, or this guy.
I think this guy deserves a visit from the Google Homeview team..
Insert
When I am on the street, I did not trow away any rights. I still should be expected to have certain privacy. e.g. NOT have pictures of me place online.
Actually you do. When you are in public, you give up some of your privacy rights. If you have a picture of you taken in a public place that will embarrass or harm you in some way, you have no legal recourse to avoid having that picture published as far as I know.
Repeat after me, "I have no expectation of privacy when in a public place.". It is an extremely simple principle, and I don't understand why people think that it doesn't apply to them.
There are laws against posting defamatory information of most kinds, but if it is a legitimate picture then there is no recourse.
And just because something is legal does not make it right to do so.
I feel the same way, like about people telling photographers that it is illegal for them to take pictures in public. It isn't illegal for private citizens to claim rights that they don't actually have as far as I know, but it isn't right to do so.
What's a photog? Is that short for photographer, photography, photograph? Or is it a new elementary particle similar to a photon? Or something related to a balrog? Come on people, is photographer really such a scary word?
There's always a clueless twat willing to demand you stop doing something harmless. If you give in they just demand something else. I've been asked not to take a picture of a park, not because of a child in the photo but simply because children play in the park sometimes.
Civility would be taking advantage of your right to curtains instead of demanding people not take pictures of your house.
OK, so there's an abusive spouse.
He or she tracks them down through other means and finds their address through a map. Do you want to ban maps? The telephone that allowed him or her to place inquiries leading to their victim's details? The car or the bus or the train or the tram, the bike or his shoes that allowed them to travel to the various places where they sought out information while stalking and tracking the person they want to victimise?
What use is a Google Streetview image of a house at an address without all the other information? How is it more useful than a map - or just physically travelling there - in respect to harassing someone at that address?
Google Streetview doesn't give you all the information of people living at an address and live video streams inside people's houses. It's no more of value for stalkign a victim than a map - you need to have already acquired information elsewhere for it to have any use - you would need to HAVE ALREADY FOUND YOUR VICTIM in order for streetview to have any use - and then it's only a cursory use - 'oh I turn left when I see that tree'.
Your argument is a straw man (and flamebait to boot.)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Unfortunately, in a situation like this, the best "victory" you'd get is being released without charges.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
for the Second Amendment.
Then you are a clueless twat.
It's called civility, something a that seems to get forgotten around here
No kidding.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Rules of engagement? What the hell is this, Afghanistan? We don't have rules here in the US, we have laws. If that idiot had pulled the trigger then he should get life in prison or the death penalty (depending on the laws there).
Maybe the guard just wanted to stop him from wasting a photo on an ugly city.
Welcome to barbarism. Go to Ciudad Juárez in Mexico if you want to see where that would get you.
So, would there be any difference if google or this "artist" were supplying a live feed video of public places? By the logic of some posters, I don't think there would be. Would it be fine with you if you had a webcam pointed at your residence 24/7? It would have all kinds of implications, and make burglary much easier. I think if you swapped this discussion between stills and live video many folks would pause a bit more, and lean toward privacy. Are there any different legal implications between the two technologies? How many of you walk around at home not fully clothed, and maybe by a curtain that's not entirely shut. Nobody's likely to notice, but have a camera cruise by at the wrong instant, and you're liable to regret it.
I'm seriously fine with google's approach, but our laws have not kept up with tech, and the implications.
Just another day in Paradise
I know the area he's talking about, he's on Pentagon Grounds and there are clearly posted signs saying photography is not allowed on the property. I don't think military property counts as public space. You could easily stand on the other side of the road and take pictures though, like where all the news crews were set up immediately post 9/11.
Rules of engagement? What the hell is this, Afghanistan? We don't have rules here in the US, we have laws
Soldiers are governed by RoE. Police is governed by laws. You can argue that use of the US Army on US soil is illegal in itself, good luck with that.
That photographer was killed by a tank shell.
And what does that have to do with anything anyway? A camera may get police angry at you, but by itself, it isn't cause for them to draw their guns. If you draw a gun, however, police will draw theirs.
I'm sorry, as I was saying: Eric Scott is not a symbol for dangers to photographers. If you want to see what kinds of dangers photographers face, go to PINAC.
So your argument is basically the same old "Think of the Children
He then wants to add those photos to Picasa, including GPS coordinates, and in turn re-connect them with Google Maps.
I thought the only way to connect geocoded photos to Google Maps was with Panoramio? I once tried it with Picasa and was frustrated that I had to re-upload them to Panoramio (or trans-load them from Picasa).
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
we have many 'rights', and some of them are 'right', while others are just there in case someone 'needs' to use them. Take the ground zero mosque, for example.... they have the right to build, but is it right to build if many neighbors are opposed? One day we will have sufficient concern for each other that these will not be an issue. Today, too many of us 'could care less' about others, so yes, Houston, we do have a problem"
So Randy Newman was right, short people do in fact have no reason to live, at least if photography is their chosen calling. Do you also outlaw Hail Mary shots?
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.