Another good question is why we aren't putting the money we put into these people into our own citizens; citizens who will be much less likely to sneak off and leave the hand that fed them out to dry.
that ruling actually makes sense. there is no way that it will be allowed to stand!
The one part I didn't see in the ruling was to determine if the unpleasing statements had truthful merit. Not sure of the legal language on it, but speaking about true things that have negative connotations to people who did not know also defames the subject of such truth. For example, if OJ Simpson were to move to Thailand, he might be pleasantly accepted; if people were to then spread the truth that he was found civilly responsible for his wife and her boyfriend's murder, he would be defamed. I'm imagining that some or much of what might have been said about the donut shop may have truthful merit.
I'm curious if in some legal sense, that speaking about true things can still be charged as defamation. Any lawyers?
For what its worth, my opinion is that the RIAA is comprised of lawyers who cannot find work otherwise.
At some point this country had met its needs of lawyers, but we kept producing more and more. And a present day makes obvious, those lawyers not wanting to take jobs outside of their education (such as managing the shoe dept at Sears), we end up with litigious bullshittery left and right.
Imagine an America where people are not afraid of garbage litigation to tie them down and rape them for lawyers fees; Imagine the progress, the innovation, and the freedom that was once felt when lawyers were not tools of exploit, but rather equipment of justice.
We cannot ask our politicians to fix this problem; most of them were lawyers to begin with. I fear that only a revolution may lead to the ousting of this cancerous disease upon our society.
I'm the idiot when you are claiming it is perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Get a grip.
I never said it was perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Again, you misinform/assume. Why can't you at have an honest conversation?
What I've said is that I would defend my property to the point of physical action like a beatdown. I've also made the point that many people in this country might shoot you if they found you on their land, pictures or not. I'm not talking about right or wrong (read: perfectly ok), but rather what is real.
I'm sorry you have a hard time with reading comprehension and controlling your propensity to draw false assumptions. Not sure I can help you with the root of the issue, but at least my replies are helping you to get a clearer picture of what is real. Fyi, I'm an agnostic social liberal.
Well then, what's so wrong about the government listening in on your phone calls? Its just a phone call, right? Not like they stepped in and interrupted you or anything.
Surely you care about that.
I hope your lackadaisic approach to privacy in this case is not driven by unquestioned faith in google. These encroachments are widespread and systematic, not individual cases.
The individual offense is not what I take issue with, but rather the systematic disregard that leads to the offense in such high frequency. Make an effort to inform yourself. Identify private roads you know of, go on streetview and look. I've already done this and found two in my local area, which is why I'm quite passionate about this topic.
Quite apparently, we don't all share the same common respect to privacy. Surely most people here do care, but this is not about privacy; rather it is whether we love google enough to ignore systematically offensive acts.
Your ideals won't save your stupid ass from a beating or a bullet. Wise up. The real world doesn't give a shit about you.
I love how these so called god fearing Christian Republicans will claim they will shoot you for setting one foot on their private property.
You do realize killing someone for simple trespass on your driveway will land you in jail for manslaughter. Or maybe you're too stupid.
I am not christian nor republican. Fail #1.
We are talking about private roads, not short driveways immediately next to public streets. Fail #2.
Your assumptions and ignorance to the topic at hand are ridiculous.
Bring on the -1 fanboys! Mod me down for clarifying the discussion for this idiot. mod him up, even though he speaks misinformation. I guess even Truth can't come between a slashdot mod and the blind love for google.
When you take the concept of private home and property out of context and assume it to be your 'personal bubble' in public places, I suppose you might have a point.
But in this case we are not talking about that.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear this up for you.
You would shoot back, even if you just then realized you're bobbling through life, witlessly--- arriving on property that is not yours and doing things you were not permitted to do.
Is there no guilt in your presence? If you never care what you do, or how it may impact others, I guess you might have a point. Otherwise, you're at a loss.
For fuck sake, Google was not standing over the guys bed trespassing in his home. They accidentally drove up a private driveway, then removed the images when asked. Thats it. No invasion of privacy. No break and enter.
It was a stupid lawsuit and deserved to be thrown out.
Happened in 2 places in my own area that I found. This isn't just some individual case. They do this all over the place. Happened overseas, as read on slashdot, and has happened many many times here on our own turf.
The point is not to merely accept it because the majority of what they do is fine; but to understand that they systematically make these mistakes in their operations because they don't actually care to be careful because that takes work--thus placing those intruded upon in charge of looking for and requesting removal of this stuff.
I guess there is a difference in the way people view privacy. I see it as absolute, within the confines of all that I am and hold title to.
This suit carries merit on a much larger scale. That which will guide google to place care before haste.
Not my primary means of problem solving at all. Just my immediate response to this specific offense. A man's home is his castle--remember that.
Our military will protect our nation from invasion, just as I will protect my household from invasion.
Let the cards fall how they may, I hope you are wise enough to know what is real; your ideals won't save you from the millions of men like me that may (in your view) over-react to trespassers.
When you wake up at 3AM and a man is standing next to your bed, what is your idealist response then? Please don't tell me you embrace the importance of privacy only when it affects you. Lol.
And all the Bush-haters are upset about Bush+telecoms. Yet all the google fanboys don't seem to care about privacy in this case. I'm upset about *both* because I won't hold Google to a different standard.
That is very American of you. I'm sure you are proud that you would commit a crime, induce response, and then sue.
Take your sue-happy attitude to private property where guns are held and your lawyer will not resurrect you.
As I said to another guy, I hope you are at least wise enough to understand that if you trespass another man's land you may end up hurt. Sounds to me like that would be your goal so you can cash in.
Not anonymous at all. And not an e-thuggery attempt either.
Privacy is something I will defend to ends even I cannot forsee. Make your jokes, but I hope you are wise enough to know that trespassing another man's land may get you hurt.
Google, as a company, is responsible for the actions it makes. In this case, the standard operating procedure involves negligent disregard for privacy.
Maybe google will hold its individual car drivers' responsible, but since they are not enforcing such respects for law/privacy, they should as a whole be accountable for such actions.
It is definitely systematic negligence/disregard. I have observed this personally.
A few months ago, in my local area I was checking out street view and reported for removal 2 separate places that I knew were private roads and are clearly marked as such.
Google got back to me that they had removed it, but that does not change the fact as to what happened. It is quite obvious that their approach is to do what they want, then, if questioned, apologize and attempt to undo it.
I am not an extremely violent person, nor am I posing as an internet-toughguy. I am a mature and civil adult that will defend privacy to great extent; that is all. If I woke up in the middle of the night and you happened to be in my home, you would be hurt very badly unless you had the means to hurt me first.
Its a shame the google-fanboy mods out there don't have the integrity to protect privacy for others when such privacy is invaded by their prized e-totem of happiness. I guess google will have to start tracking all of their internet usage and making it public before they might start caring.
The people who mod me down for my expressed anger toward invasion of privacy are quite likely the same people who cry about Bush+Telecoms. But they don't like Bush.
Come to my private road. I'll beat your ass off of it -- so hard you'll forget the teeth you've lost.
These people want common decency and respect for privacy, and they know Google isn't offering it (since privacy is preserved post-breach via opt-out mouse clickery). Apparently a lawsuit is the only way they felt Google might start to give a shit.
You see this as predatory litigation -- I see this as one person actually standing up for the thousands that have been trespassed.
Those stupid camera cars need to *KNOW* what they are doing *BEFORE* they do it. Currently, they just breach privacy and allow people to opt-out of being put on public display. That is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
What's the difference between a knowing-trespasser and an unkonwing trrespasser? Simple -- only one of them knows what might be coming to them.
... I can, with the guise of ignorant bobbling-through life, show up on private land that Google owns --- take a lot of pictures and put them on public display for the world and then wait for google to e-mail me and remove them *if* they don't like it?
Privacy apparently isn't a big deal nowadays...
(I hope you google fanboys don't mod me down just because you like street view. Every time I post about how google, via negligent activity, wrongly trespasses on peoples land, I get modded down.)
That stupid car shows up on my private property and they'll be lucky to leave with all their blood.
Hundreds of individual pieces? RTFM, man! It was just two satellites, so it's only two pieces. Well, like, duh.
Apparently you fail at common sense. Take 2 very large objects that are not a solid indestructible mass, but rather a formation of smaller components in a relatively fragile design. now slam them together at very high speed.
What you now have is a very erratic disassembly of the original objects into fragments.
That would probably be better than all the debris spreading out and remaining in orbit. That debris, now hundreds of individual pieces, is now able to cause trouble to anything trying to pass through its 'air space', including more satellites, etc.
Some say that the day we have combat/war in space is the last day we will enter space because the debris will block exit/entry.
This is quite *obviously* a failed sniper attack driven by private interests. I am pretty pissed to see my representative acting like a puppet and I will do my part to spread the word.
If you live in California, take note and use your democratic power to counter-lobby the people she bends over for.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like concerns for the establishments those people are coming from, just as my original point relates to the US.
In a way, your intentional derailment of the point I had made serves to reinforce the point. Thanks!
Another good question is why we aren't putting the money we put into these people into our own citizens; citizens who will be much less likely to sneak off and leave the hand that fed them out to dry.
that ruling actually makes sense. there is no way that it will be allowed to stand!
The one part I didn't see in the ruling was to determine if the unpleasing statements had truthful merit. Not sure of the legal language on it, but speaking about true things that have negative connotations to people who did not know also defames the subject of such truth. For example, if OJ Simpson were to move to Thailand, he might be pleasantly accepted; if people were to then spread the truth that he was found civilly responsible for his wife and her boyfriend's murder, he would be defamed. I'm imagining that some or much of what might have been said about the donut shop may have truthful merit.
I'm curious if in some legal sense, that speaking about true things can still be charged as defamation. Any lawyers?
For what its worth, my opinion is that the RIAA is comprised of lawyers who cannot find work otherwise.
At some point this country had met its needs of lawyers, but we kept producing more and more. And a present day makes obvious, those lawyers not wanting to take jobs outside of their education (such as managing the shoe dept at Sears), we end up with litigious bullshittery left and right.
Imagine an America where people are not afraid of garbage litigation to tie them down and rape them for lawyers fees; Imagine the progress, the innovation, and the freedom that was once felt when lawyers were not tools of exploit, but rather equipment of justice.
We cannot ask our politicians to fix this problem; most of them were lawyers to begin with. I fear that only a revolution may lead to the ousting of this cancerous disease upon our society.
I'm the idiot when you are claiming it is perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Get a grip.
I never said it was perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Again, you misinform/assume. Why can't you at have an honest conversation?
What I've said is that I would defend my property to the point of physical action like a beatdown. I've also made the point that many people in this country might shoot you if they found you on their land, pictures or not. I'm not talking about right or wrong (read: perfectly ok), but rather what is real.
I'm sorry you have a hard time with reading comprehension and controlling your propensity to draw false assumptions. Not sure I can help you with the root of the issue, but at least my replies are helping you to get a clearer picture of what is real. Fyi, I'm an agnostic social liberal.
Well then, what's so wrong about the government listening in on your phone calls? Its just a phone call, right? Not like they stepped in and interrupted you or anything.
Surely you care about that.
I hope your lackadaisic approach to privacy in this case is not driven by unquestioned faith in google. These encroachments are widespread and systematic, not individual cases.
The individual offense is not what I take issue with, but rather the systematic disregard that leads to the offense in such high frequency. Make an effort to inform yourself. Identify private roads you know of, go on streetview and look. I've already done this and found two in my local area, which is why I'm quite passionate about this topic.
Quite apparently, we don't all share the same common respect to privacy. Surely most people here do care, but this is not about privacy; rather it is whether we love google enough to ignore systematically offensive acts.
Ugh Ugh!
(pounds chest)
Your ideals won't save your stupid ass from a beating or a bullet. Wise up. The real world doesn't give a shit about you.
I love how these so called god fearing Christian Republicans will claim they will shoot you for setting one foot on their private property.
You do realize killing someone for simple trespass on your driveway will land you in jail for manslaughter. Or maybe you're too stupid.
I am not christian nor republican. Fail #1.
We are talking about private roads, not short driveways immediately next to public streets. Fail #2.
Your assumptions and ignorance to the topic at hand are ridiculous.
Bring on the -1 fanboys! Mod me down for clarifying the discussion for this idiot. mod him up, even though he speaks misinformation. I guess even Truth can't come between a slashdot mod and the blind love for google.
When you take the concept of private home and property out of context and assume it to be your 'personal bubble' in public places, I suppose you might have a point.
But in this case we are not talking about that.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear this up for you.
This is about PRIVATE roads (streets), not public streets. The street, too, is private.
I am glad to clear this up for you.
You would shoot back, even if you just then realized you're bobbling through life, witlessly--- arriving on property that is not yours and doing things you were not permitted to do.
Is there no guilt in your presence? If you never care what you do, or how it may impact others, I guess you might have a point. Otherwise, you're at a loss.
For fuck sake, Google was not standing over the guys bed trespassing in his home. They accidentally drove up a private driveway, then removed the images when asked. Thats it. No invasion of privacy. No break and enter.
It was a stupid lawsuit and deserved to be thrown out.
Happened in 2 places in my own area that I found. This isn't just some individual case. They do this all over the place. Happened overseas, as read on slashdot, and has happened many many times here on our own turf.
The point is not to merely accept it because the majority of what they do is fine; but to understand that they systematically make these mistakes in their operations because they don't actually care to be careful because that takes work--thus placing those intruded upon in charge of looking for and requesting removal of this stuff.
I guess there is a difference in the way people view privacy. I see it as absolute, within the confines of all that I am and hold title to.
This suit carries merit on a much larger scale. That which will guide google to place care before haste.
Trepass is not automatically a crime
and in most places you need to be asked and provided the means to leave before it can be considered a crime
Do you have any references for this?
Back to my point: Your ideals won't save your stupid ass from a beating or a bullet. Wise up. The real world doesn't give a shit about you.
Not my primary means of problem solving at all. Just my immediate response to this specific offense. A man's home is his castle--remember that.
Our military will protect our nation from invasion, just as I will protect my household from invasion.
Let the cards fall how they may, I hope you are wise enough to know what is real; your ideals won't save you from the millions of men like me that may (in your view) over-react to trespassers.
When you wake up at 3AM and a man is standing next to your bed, what is your idealist response then? Please don't tell me you embrace the importance of privacy only when it affects you. Lol.
And all the Bush-haters are upset about Bush+telecoms. Yet all the google fanboys don't seem to care about privacy in this case. I'm upset about *both* because I won't hold Google to a different standard.
That is very American of you. I'm sure you are proud that you would commit a crime, induce response, and then sue.
Take your sue-happy attitude to private property where guns are held and your lawyer will not resurrect you.
As I said to another guy, I hope you are at least wise enough to understand that if you trespass another man's land you may end up hurt. Sounds to me like that would be your goal so you can cash in.
Not anonymous at all. And not an e-thuggery attempt either.
Privacy is something I will defend to ends even I cannot forsee. Make your jokes, but I hope you are wise enough to know that trespassing another man's land may get you hurt.
Look at us getting modded down by google fanboys.
Fuck privacy, so long as the company you like is breaching it, right?
If Bush did this, we would have +5 Insightful.
This is killing my faith in slashdot.
Google, as a company, is responsible for the actions it makes. In this case, the standard operating procedure involves negligent disregard for privacy.
Maybe google will hold its individual car drivers' responsible, but since they are not enforcing such respects for law/privacy, they should as a whole be accountable for such actions.
It is definitely systematic negligence/disregard. I have observed this personally.
A few months ago, in my local area I was checking out street view and reported for removal 2 separate places that I knew were private roads and are clearly marked as such.
Google got back to me that they had removed it, but that does not change the fact as to what happened. It is quite obvious that their approach is to do what they want, then, if questioned, apologize and attempt to undo it.
I am not an extremely violent person, nor am I posing as an internet-toughguy. I am a mature and civil adult that will defend privacy to great extent; that is all. If I woke up in the middle of the night and you happened to be in my home, you would be hurt very badly unless you had the means to hurt me first.
Its a shame the google-fanboy mods out there don't have the integrity to protect privacy for others when such privacy is invaded by their prized e-totem of happiness. I guess google will have to start tracking all of their internet usage and making it public before they might start caring.
The people who mod me down for my expressed anger toward invasion of privacy are quite likely the same people who cry about Bush+Telecoms. But they don't like Bush.
Come to my private road. I'll beat your ass off of it -- so hard you'll forget the teeth you've lost.
These people want common decency and respect for privacy, and they know Google isn't offering it (since privacy is preserved post-breach via opt-out mouse clickery). Apparently a lawsuit is the only way they felt Google might start to give a shit.
You see this as predatory litigation -- I see this as one person actually standing up for the thousands that have been trespassed.
hahaha.. i just posted about this.
+5 for COMMON SENSE.
Those stupid camera cars need to *KNOW* what they are doing *BEFORE* they do it. Currently, they just breach privacy and allow people to opt-out of being put on public display. That is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
What's the difference between a knowing-trespasser and an unkonwing trrespasser? Simple -- only one of them knows what might be coming to them.
Privacy > Google Fanaticism.
... I can, with the guise of ignorant bobbling-through life, show up on private land that Google owns --- take a lot of pictures and put them on public display for the world and then wait for google to e-mail me and remove them *if* they don't like it?
Privacy apparently isn't a big deal nowadays...
(I hope you google fanboys don't mod me down just because you like street view. Every time I post about how google, via negligent activity, wrongly trespasses on peoples land, I get modded down.)
That stupid car shows up on my private property and they'll be lucky to leave with all their blood.
Fuckem'
--- its time we man up and quit suckin the M$ dick. And ubuntu is so awesomely usable, just in time!
Hundreds of individual pieces? RTFM, man! It was just two satellites, so it's only two pieces. Well, like, duh.
Apparently you fail at common sense. Take 2 very large objects that are not a solid indestructible mass, but rather a formation of smaller components in a relatively fragile design. now slam them together at very high speed.
What you now have is a very erratic disassembly of the original objects into fragments.
duh.
That would probably be better than all the debris spreading out and remaining in orbit. That debris, now hundreds of individual pieces, is now able to cause trouble to anything trying to pass through its 'air space', including more satellites, etc.
Some say that the day we have combat/war in space is the last day we will enter space because the debris will block exit/entry.
This is quite *obviously* a failed sniper attack driven by private interests. I am pretty pissed to see my representative acting like a puppet and I will do my part to spread the word.
If you live in California, take note and use your democratic power to counter-lobby the people she bends over for.