> I hope you will not think any less of America's citizens because of the actions of the American government.
I've lived in two western countries for long enough to get some sort of opinion of how much a government behaves in a way that reflects the mentality of its citizens. I've found that the two mostly correlate, both for the good and bad decisions.
That being said, as a friend I had that was from Iran once said, "there are good people everywhere".
How much do you actually know about him? Have you met him? Having seen him at CCC at a soldering workshop, I really can't imagine him going ballistic. The guy has his principals and he makes his own choices.
Do you have principals of your own or do you just complain about other people's?
Do you intend to *force* Mitch to continue to partner up with Maker Faire because you don't like him making his own decisions?
But the fact remains that the faces are required to be blurred. I agree that Google should do this as they do in the states, but voluntarily not by force of the states. The problem is that by requiring them to do that it creates the ability to do it to just about anybody who takes a photo in a public place and publishes it.
In Switzerland, the law already covers this, protecting the individual in the photo.
What happens when this gets applied to, for example, photos of police brutality at a protest in interest of the privacy of the police officers? or a politician or famous businessman in a compromising position?
This is also covered. If you can show that it in the interest of the public that a photo be shown, then you can justify this in the terms of the law. I love swiss law! It's made to be readable by lay people, as long as you can read German.
> In the United States the courts have long ruled, and it is well established that pretty much anyone can take pictures of your home
Great! But American law is not international law. On the other side of the coin, I'm sure you'll complain when a photo of you, showing you passed out on the lawn, which is subsequently posted on facebook, leads to the loss of your job.
In Switzerland, I have the right to have a photo of me removed from a public website -- a right I am glad to have. Do you have the same right in the US?
> But from a public policy and rights perspective, it would have been better for the American people long-term if Google actually started fighting and winning these suits in order to shut the nutjobs up
Sure, no problem, as long as it is within the law, within the country where they are operating.
> And before I get a bunch of IANALs responding to this post
Why do people even declare themselves as "IANAL"? Perhaps, because in the US there are laws restricting who can and cannot give legal advice. I can respect that.
> It's my job to know these sorts of things.
Stick to events in America, where you know your shit, but don't expect your knowledge to carry over.
> I've had with some of the nation's top attorneys on just this kind of matter
| This is the definition of the slippery slope. Employers have been able to get random drug tests an accepted and even expected part of every job; now that they've completed that goal, it's time to test the waters even further out.
This will surely fail. Whereas the majority (i think) of people aren't consuming drugs (except the caffeinated variety), people have lot's to hide in their email (things to do with their personality/lifestyle). If this became standard policy, to check email accounts of job applicants, people might actually wake up and realise where they've been led.
> We all know it; we are breaking the law when we download music/videos
Perhaps where you live. Here in Switzerland, downloading music and videos remains legal. Sharing (read: copying) pieces of music, art, etc (not computer programs) with family and close friends is stated quite explicitiy as legal in the swiss equivalent of copyright law.
Ok, so now we're no longer worried about weapons grade uranium falling into terrorists hands via Iran, but instead we are afraid they will use a nuclear ICBM (just one to begin with) to attack the western world?! Or perhaps they will lend it to their terrorist friends??
Any country that is smart enough to send a satellite, not just a rocket, into space, is unlikely to be stupid enough to attack someone with an ICBM. This is not wargames! Doesn't the US alone still have more the 50'000 active nuclear missiles? It would be self-genocide!
They are more likely to use an ICBM as a threat to keep western nations from meddling.
This achievement should be celebrated. Think of the scientists working on this and how proud they probably are of themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
> I hope you will not think any less of America's citizens because of the actions of the American government.
I've lived in two western countries for long enough to get some sort of opinion of how much a government behaves in a way that reflects the mentality of its citizens. I've found that the two mostly correlate, both for the good and bad decisions.
That being said, as a friend I had that was from Iran once said, "there are good people everywhere".
And I bet this guy would go ballistic
How much do you actually know about him? Have you met him? Having seen him at CCC at a soldering workshop, I really can't imagine him going ballistic. The guy has his principals and he makes his own choices.
Do you have principals of your own or do you just complain about other people's?
Do you intend to *force* Mitch to continue to partner up with Maker Faire because you don't like him making his own decisions?
IMAP was still working when I noticed it go down.
I think this is a realistic objection, and it is the basis for the requirement that Google blur faces and license plates.
I find it interesting that this requirement even ended up in a contract, somewhere... I'm 100% certain this is covered by the law here,....
and they don't get to have enjoyment of the service after they've been pissy about it.
Sorry, but we don't respond well to bullying..
But the fact remains that the faces are required to be blurred. I agree that Google should do this as they do in the states, but voluntarily not by force of the states. The problem is that by requiring them to do that it creates the ability to do it to just about anybody who takes a photo in a public place and publishes it.
In Switzerland, the law already covers this, protecting the individual in the photo.
What happens when this gets applied to, for example, photos of police brutality at a protest in interest of the privacy of the police officers? or a politician or famous businessman in a compromising position?
This is also covered. If you can show that it in the interest of the public that a photo be shown, then you can justify this in the terms of the law. I love swiss law! It's made to be readable by lay people, as long as you can read German.
Google is your friend, so nothing to worry about! Google is your friend!
Is this a "Paranoia" RPG quote? Would have loved to play that game. Only ever played a computerised version of it...
Perhaps google is removing those images upon request, not because it's worried about the lawsuit, but because it's simply polite?
Nope, it's required by law. And according to the article, it was a requirement from the government to which they agreed.
> In the United States the courts have long ruled, and it is well established that pretty much anyone can take pictures of your home
Great! But American law is not international law. On the other side of the coin, I'm sure you'll complain when a photo of you, showing you passed out on the lawn, which is subsequently posted on facebook, leads to the loss of your job. In Switzerland, I have the right to have a photo of me removed from a public website -- a right I am glad to have. Do you have the same right in the US?
> But from a public policy and rights perspective, it would have been better for the American people long-term if Google actually started fighting and winning these suits in order to shut the nutjobs up
Sure, no problem, as long as it is within the law, within the country where they are operating.
> And before I get a bunch of IANALs responding to this post
Why do people even declare themselves as "IANAL"? Perhaps, because in the US there are laws restricting who can and cannot give legal advice. I can respect that.
> It's my job to know these sorts of things.
Stick to events in America, where you know your shit, but don't expect your knowledge to carry over.
> I've had with some of the nation's top attorneys on just this kind of matter
I hope you told them right up front... IANAL!
| This is the definition of the slippery slope. Employers have been able to get random drug tests an accepted and even expected part of every job; now that they've completed that goal, it's time to test the waters even further out. This will surely fail. Whereas the majority (i think) of people aren't consuming drugs (except the caffeinated variety), people have lot's to hide in their email (things to do with their personality/lifestyle). If this became standard policy, to check email accounts of job applicants, people might actually wake up and realise where they've been led.
> We all know it; we are breaking the law when we download music/videos Perhaps where you live. Here in Switzerland, downloading music and videos remains legal. Sharing (read: copying) pieces of music, art, etc (not computer programs) with family and close friends is stated quite explicitiy as legal in the swiss equivalent of copyright law.
Mmm hmm... and they all belonged to a network called "The Scene".. probably made with a "series of tubes"..
Ok, so now we're no longer worried about weapons grade uranium falling into terrorists hands via Iran, but instead we are afraid they will use a nuclear ICBM (just one to begin with) to attack the western world?! Or perhaps they will lend it to their terrorist friends?? Any country that is smart enough to send a satellite, not just a rocket, into space, is unlikely to be stupid enough to attack someone with an ICBM. This is not wargames! Doesn't the US alone still have more the 50'000 active nuclear missiles? It would be self-genocide! They are more likely to use an ICBM as a threat to keep western nations from meddling. This achievement should be celebrated. Think of the scientists working on this and how proud they probably are of themselves?