She showed complete disregard for the well being of anyone else, which is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.
No, that's the definition of an idiot. A sociopath is a far more complicated animal. Sociopaths may not deserve much sympathy, but everybody is an idiot now and then.
It wouldn't surprise me if they find a way to monetize it before it runs the risk of tanking. Although some of that might be dependent on how many companies are willing to work with them and adjust their business models.
I disagree with that statement. Certainly there are many legal things where we can organize resistance.
I disagree with that statement, too. Most of what the US banks did that caused the economic crisis was perfectly legal. There's a reason the law isn't fixed. Especially when it comes to advancing technology, existing law can be terrible at providing the necessary protections.
The line is nearly impossible to define accurately
So is the concept of "obscenity". Its legal definition is relevant to local attitudes. Many legal lines aren't explicitly drawn, and with good reason.
Should it honestly be illegal to stitch a bunch of legally taken photos together?
I never said it should be made illegal. I think there needs to be a more serious consideration of how this affects people's safety, and ways to keep that in check. Google claims to accept takedown requests, but in reality many of those requests are ignored. They also claim to have very accurate face/license-plate recognition, but in reality it doesn't seem to be nearly as accurate as they claim.
The closer you get to public surveillance, the easier it gets to abuse that information. In court, any information can be used against you, even if it should have the opposite effect. To me "don't do things in public that you would like to keep private" is right up there with the argument "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear". Knowing fully that you're in a public space doesn't change the fact that this kind of information can be abused.
I'd like to see the law in the US at least try to examine the ramifications of that a little further before going the route the UK did with things like CCTV. It wouldn't surprise me if the outburst in TFA had more to do with the overall increase of surveillance in the UK, and not necessarily Google in particular. This is a drastic blow to most people's attitudes about privacy and what it means to be in a public space, and it does allow for very real invasion. If we don't take a closer look at the problem, then we will have no idea just how much it is being taken advantage of.
If everyone used Flickr and geotagged their photos, or if someone built a search engine to look over Flickr and all similar services by geotagging
These examples require complete cooperation from everyone involved (including every Flickr user choosing to make their photos publicly searchable AND requiring them all to own equipment capable of geotagging). Street View skips straight over all that and gives you a database of photos that is not only searchable, but consistent in quality and orientation. So there is still a difference in availability of data and quality.
I imagine if there was a centralized database of user-made photos as immediately searchable and comprehensive as Street View (which is probably inevitable at this point), you'd start getting complaints from people unwillingly showing up in others' vacation photos. The same problem will crop up again. Once the data is centralized and made easily available, it becomes possible to directly target an individual represented somewhere in that data. That is when the complaints start rolling in, and I believe there's a legitimate concern there.
I don't think the solution is to abolish these services entirely, but I also think the attitude of "it's the future just get over it" is just as inept. There needs to be some serious re-thinking of privacy laws and our definition of privacy. Like I mention in my other comment in this thread.
Flickr photos are posted by individuals and are not a comprehensive database of every street. Street View is a systematically-created database with one specific intent, and data calibrated for that specific purpose. Honestly, I do not know where the line should be drawn, but I think determining the differences between these situations is the beginning of figuring that out.
It's pretty obvious that this kind of proliferation of data is inevitable. The real question is, how should the law intervene to protect when necessary? Are companies like Google honestly doing their best to protect people (removal requests), or are they just giving a token effort and not following through? I don't think a blanket statement of "it's public, just deal with it" is either helpful nor representative of the impact of these services.
I wasn't saying Google is running surveillance. The 24/7 example is a different aspect of the same problem. We already know how popular surveillance cameras are in the UK. Who knows how long it will take to figure out an honest answer to how much CCTV is being abused.
So what about tourists taking photos on vacation? Do they have the right to take photos of interesting buildings?
IMO the real problem here is a matter of scale and availability: any one person can take a photo and put it up on the internet, but Google is taking thousands of photos and putting them up in one easily-accessible location that is indexed and searchable. Those are two very different things. Just like taking a photo on a public street is very different in scope than running cameras 24/7 on every street corner. Because of that difference, they differ in their potential to invade someone's privacy or safety.
Many child abusers are parents themselves, and inflict the abuse on their own children, thinking there's nothing wrong with it. Apparently Josef Fritzl is a better authority than the OC?
Criticism: Christianity gets on my nerves. So many self-righteous jerks.
Hate speech: It's time for a war on Christianity! If you're a respectable non-Christian it's your duty to do your part in removing this menace! Do whatever it takes!
Good stuff. I think a lot of parental frustration comes from completely forgetting what it was like to be a kid. The more we learn of measurable differences in functioning between children and adults, the better. Ingrained beliefs can only get you so far.
I'm a liberal (no party affiliation) and I agree on this one. One too many pieces of legislation claiming "no new costs, we can pay for it without raising taxes!" That's a load of bull. CA has some great ideas, programs and services, but the Dems are waaaaaaaay too lazy when it comes to figuring out where the money is going to come from. The result: a lot of great ideas using up more money than they should, because the legislation was rushed out the door amidst the excitement.
Slashdot Mirror
She showed complete disregard for the well being of anyone else, which is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.
No, that's the definition of an idiot. A sociopath is a far more complicated animal. Sociopaths may not deserve much sympathy, but everybody is an idiot now and then.
Truth is funnier than fiction.
Other things that will come "in a few years":
- Stereo 3D in the home
- Personalized medicine
- The end of the economic crisis
- Flying cars
- Duke Nukem Forever
That depends on who you ask.
And if you want to just be really confused, read The Iron Dragon's Daughter by Michael Swanwick.
Here's hoping they're putting more thought into the problem than that.
It wouldn't surprise me if they find a way to monetize it before it runs the risk of tanking. Although some of that might be dependent on how many companies are willing to work with them and adjust their business models.
I disagree with that statement. Certainly there are many legal things where we can organize resistance.
I disagree with that statement, too. Most of what the US banks did that caused the economic crisis was perfectly legal. There's a reason the law isn't fixed. Especially when it comes to advancing technology, existing law can be terrible at providing the necessary protections.
The line is nearly impossible to define accurately
So is the concept of "obscenity". Its legal definition is relevant to local attitudes. Many legal lines aren't explicitly drawn, and with good reason.
Should it honestly be illegal to stitch a bunch of legally taken photos together?
I never said it should be made illegal. I think there needs to be a more serious consideration of how this affects people's safety, and ways to keep that in check. Google claims to accept takedown requests, but in reality many of those requests are ignored. They also claim to have very accurate face/license-plate recognition, but in reality it doesn't seem to be nearly as accurate as they claim.
The closer you get to public surveillance, the easier it gets to abuse that information. In court, any information can be used against you, even if it should have the opposite effect. To me "don't do things in public that you would like to keep private" is right up there with the argument "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear". Knowing fully that you're in a public space doesn't change the fact that this kind of information can be abused.
I'd like to see the law in the US at least try to examine the ramifications of that a little further before going the route the UK did with things like CCTV. It wouldn't surprise me if the outburst in TFA had more to do with the overall increase of surveillance in the UK, and not necessarily Google in particular. This is a drastic blow to most people's attitudes about privacy and what it means to be in a public space, and it does allow for very real invasion. If we don't take a closer look at the problem, then we will have no idea just how much it is being taken advantage of.
If everyone used Flickr and geotagged their photos, or if someone built a search engine to look over Flickr and all similar services by geotagging
These examples require complete cooperation from everyone involved (including every Flickr user choosing to make their photos publicly searchable AND requiring them all to own equipment capable of geotagging). Street View skips straight over all that and gives you a database of photos that is not only searchable, but consistent in quality and orientation. So there is still a difference in availability of data and quality.
I imagine if there was a centralized database of user-made photos as immediately searchable and comprehensive as Street View (which is probably inevitable at this point), you'd start getting complaints from people unwillingly showing up in others' vacation photos. The same problem will crop up again. Once the data is centralized and made easily available, it becomes possible to directly target an individual represented somewhere in that data. That is when the complaints start rolling in, and I believe there's a legitimate concern there.
I don't think the solution is to abolish these services entirely, but I also think the attitude of "it's the future just get over it" is just as inept. There needs to be some serious re-thinking of privacy laws and our definition of privacy. Like I mention in my other comment in this thread.
Flickr photos are posted by individuals and are not a comprehensive database of every street. Street View is a systematically-created database with one specific intent, and data calibrated for that specific purpose. Honestly, I do not know where the line should be drawn, but I think determining the differences between these situations is the beginning of figuring that out.
It's pretty obvious that this kind of proliferation of data is inevitable. The real question is, how should the law intervene to protect when necessary? Are companies like Google honestly doing their best to protect people (removal requests), or are they just giving a token effort and not following through? I don't think a blanket statement of "it's public, just deal with it" is either helpful nor representative of the impact of these services.
I wasn't saying Google is running surveillance. The 24/7 example is a different aspect of the same problem. We already know how popular surveillance cameras are in the UK. Who knows how long it will take to figure out an honest answer to how much CCTV is being abused.
Said the peeping Tom looking for justification.
Actually, just about everything gets ridiculed. Getting deemed "stupid" is a function of history.
So what about tourists taking photos on vacation? Do they have the right to take photos of interesting buildings?
IMO the real problem here is a matter of scale and availability: any one person can take a photo and put it up on the internet, but Google is taking thousands of photos and putting them up in one easily-accessible location that is indexed and searchable. Those are two very different things. Just like taking a photo on a public street is very different in scope than running cameras 24/7 on every street corner. Because of that difference, they differ in their potential to invade someone's privacy or safety.
I have to admit, watching the insecure guys squirm in response to "cute" (like the OP) is pretty entertaining.
If I had mod points they would all go to this one thread.
Don't come around bothering me over dirty pictures while Father O'Malley sodomizes little Timmy.
Exactly this.
Many child abusers are parents themselves, and inflict the abuse on their own children, thinking there's nothing wrong with it. Apparently Josef Fritzl is a better authority than the OC?
A more direct example:
Criticism: Christianity gets on my nerves. So many self-righteous jerks.
Hate speech: It's time for a war on Christianity! If you're a respectable non-Christian it's your duty to do your part in removing this menace! Do whatever it takes!
Good stuff. I think a lot of parental frustration comes from completely forgetting what it was like to be a kid. The more we learn of measurable differences in functioning between children and adults, the better. Ingrained beliefs can only get you so far.
Though you have to admit, if it passed in a colder state it would be really funny.
Connection: both involve some form of batter.
I'm a liberal (no party affiliation) and I agree on this one. One too many pieces of legislation claiming "no new costs, we can pay for it without raising taxes!" That's a load of bull. CA has some great ideas, programs and services, but the Dems are waaaaaaaay too lazy when it comes to figuring out where the money is going to come from. The result: a lot of great ideas using up more money than they should, because the legislation was rushed out the door amidst the excitement.
I've definitely run across many a trollish commenter who could easily be reduced to an algorithm and simulated.
I used to sneak into my dad's room to play Doom on his computer, because I only had a 386.