Are you talking about frameworks or shared libs? Also are you talking about native OSX apps as well as POSIX apps?
I dont think OSX runs native apps in a way that would be recognizable to a UNIX admin. Hence my "2 parallel systems" categorization.
Note that the Windows bit is probably a little off. With Windows the subsystems are so far removed from eachother that one cannot make calls across subsystems (this is not emulation, BTW, but rather a POSIX/UNIX system on an NT kernel). On OSX you can. However, this might not be done in practice a great deal.
Would it be acceptable to record live footage of your front door 24/7? And then publish it as a browsable online database of anyone entering and exiting?
There are a couple of issues here that don't occur with Google Street. The first is that unlike Google Street, a browsable online database of anyone entering/exiting WOULD make burglary a great deal easier. Secondly it would be a close parallel of someone sitting in a car 24/7 and watching my front-door. In such a case, I think there might be crimes committed. After all, this wouldn't be fundamentally from someone sitting out in front, live-blogging about when people enter/exit. If there isn't a crime covering it, I would see no problem passing a law criminalizing that sort of thing.
I would draw the line using a "real person test." If it is OK for a real person to go and do something, it is OK for a real person to take photos in the same manner. If I can walk down the street, I can do so taking photos. If I can sit in front of a bank 24/7 in my car, then I can record who goes in/out as well. I still think it is polite for people to remove photos of PEOPLE on request, but fixed objects are fundamentally different.
There are reasonable expectations of privacy in public places but they are greatly reduced. I don't see Google Street as being across the line because it mostly amounts to a visual record of what the streetview car did legally.
What takes more time? Driving around a neighborhood or virtually cruising it on Google Street?
My experience doing virtual walkthroughs of routes I was going to drive is that it always takes at least 5x longer to go through the same info on Google Street. Really, if you are going to spend an hour casing out a neighborhood, you are going to do it by car, not by Google Street.
The fact that you are uncomfortable coming to terms with the fact that your privacy when outdoors in your front lawn is only an illusion is irrelevant.
I have ALWAYS assumed that there is no privacy in one's front lawn. One's fenced (with an 8ft fence) back yard is a different matter though.
Ok. Typical UNIX systems tend to be built around the assumption that a system is made of small pieces, loosely woven. Admins expect this sort of behavior. In this view, one has a large toolset of applications which can be readily combined and recombined fairly easily, but are maintained separately. This is taken further by the concept of shared libraries where one may remove shared functionality from a number of programs and include them as a library that more programs can use. Different versions of these libraries can exist side-by-side as needed.
Mac OS X software is built around an idea that one has a monolithic platform framework and smaller applications on top of that framework. This is sort of a "big pieces, tightly coupled" approach which is absolutely foreign to a UNIX admin. OSX apps don't generally use shared libraries (Posix apps running on OSX are a different matter). Instead these apps are specifically about as far from what a UNIX admin would expect as one can get.
Now, on OSX you do generally have a fairly full BSD command set, which is helpful. OS X is a great platform for developing UNIX software. However, if you had a bunch of Mac desktops in a business, you fundamnetally could not expect UNIX administrators to pick these up without a LOT more ramp-up time than would be expected for more *nix-like OS's. All the tools are there, but the system is just differently designed. Also, this doesn't mean you can't run UNIX software on a Mac either. However when you do, you will notice that there are BIG differences in how UNIX vs OSX apps work on OSX.....
I actually think that there are two things killing traditional UNIX:
1) Lack of economy of scale in vertically integrated markets.
2) Focus exclusively on hardware/performance rather than admin-friendliness. While Linux is taking some time to catch up on the former, it is light-years ahead of traditional UNIX flavors on the latter. Given some professional attention by UNIX-vendors ike IBM, it will catch up.
I predict that in 10 years, the only major UNIX-like systems on the market will be Linux and *BSD.
A better way to look at it is that OSX is a very non-UNIX-like system that offers a parallel UNIX system.
For example, consider the differences on OSX between how a typical app uses shared libraries (or rather doesn't) and a typical POSIX app uses shared libraries. The fact is that OSX and standard OSX software is designed with VERY, VERY different ideas than UNIX software. Just because you can do UNIX-like stuff on OSX makes it no more UNIX than Windows is of you install SUA.
You are missing the point. Mac OS offers really two parallel systems. One is fairly UNIXy and the other is less like UNIX than Windows is..... For example, see the way typical Mac software uses shared libraries (they don't).
Windows has as much a claim to be UNIXy as Mac OS does, at least once one installes the Subsystem for UNIX applications.
Really, standard commercial UNIX is dying. The economy of scale is killing it and Linux/BSD will take over. Mac OSX is nice as a desktop system used by developers of UNIX software, but it is not a UNIX system in any meaningful sense and no UNIX admin will feel comfortable with OSX on the basis of UNIX experience.
Agreed here. MacOS is a very un-UNIX system built on top of a UNIX kernel. You can do a lot of UNIXy things with it but standard Mac software is further from the UNIX way than Windows software is.....
I'm sorry you don't feel that the answer is helpful, but I myself cannot see any other acceptable answer, as "I don't like that, I know it's legal but quit it" is unacceptable to me, for what should be obvious reasons
I disagree with that statement. Certainly there are many legal things where we can organize resistance. Certainly if one says "I know the MPAA's insistance on stronger DRM is legal, but I don't like it, so I think we should boycott them and stop seeing movies" is quite reasonable.
What I have a problem with is mob rule here though. There are plenty of ways of handling disagreements about what is tasteful or acceptable as a matter of social contract which don't involve mob rule.
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, would you object to that? At some point, wouldn't the Flickr solution turn out to be FAR MORE of a privacy invasion than Google Street?
Or is it just that they aren't so systematic about this? Bazar is OK, cathederal is not? Crowdsourcing is good, company doing it themselves is not?
Of course they don't! To them the intertubes is a series of nets....
The real issue though is that few people around government have ANY idea the complexity of these problems. I have just begun to develop a mathematical/algebreic system for modelling security of computer networks and it is quite intereting the challenges involved in doing this. However, I can't find anyone who has tried to tackle this problem before mathematically, let alone anyone who has succeeded. The goal of such a system would be to:
1) Mathematically prove that an isolated network is sufficiently isolated as to make it IMPOSSIBLE to attack via automated network tools from an arbitrary point. 2) Mathematically represent the security of a network's ability to contain and detect compromises. 3) Mathematically represent relatice security and containment controls such that one can determine how secure critical systems in fact are.
I don't know how it helps you if you are an honest citizen; but for a criminal such functions may be of some use (though I saw some comments made by people "in the know" who say it isn't so.)
Some examples for how it helps ME as an honest citizen:
1) When I am going somewhere I am not familiar with, I can do a preview of the route on Google Street. Then I can more easily note landmarks, etc. what key intersections look like, etc.
2) If my wife calls me and says she is lost, if I can get Google Street up, I can get a fair sense of what she is seeing once I have an intersection. Much, much better than guiding someone around over the phone using a map.
I will leave the points about virtual tourism to others and focus exclusively on PRACTICAL value.
Flickr I think does map-to-photo correlation. It might even be searchable. Do you have a problem with this? Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Also I don;t think this case involved cameras running 24 hours per day on every street corner.
Ok, so suppose instead Google offered, say, free photo hosting and as part of the terms and conditions, reserved the rights to use all these photos for their google streets app?
Do you have a problem with Flickr's photo-to-map capabilities?
I don't think this would hold up in court. If you are on a right-of-way, taking photos of buildings within reasonable limits (for example, some special camera able to see through the glare of windows, and enhance contents inside might not be ok), I think you would have some fairly strong first-amendment rights to take the photos. The fact that police overstep Constitutional limits from time to time doesn't mean that this is permitted.
There have been a few cases in Washington State too which, iirc, have gone to court.
Furthermore, it isn't as if burglers can't drive around the neighborhood scouting it out themselves or wouldn't be likely to do so regardless of whether Google Street posts the images.
So what about tourists taking photos on vacation? Do they have the right to take photos of interesting buildings?
Suppose Google Maps solicited private photos rather than taking the photos themselves. Woudl that make a difference? It would certainly make it impossible to drive Google photographers out of town since tourists might be able to make a little extra money photographing streets for Google.....
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about frameworks or shared libs? Also are you talking about native OSX apps as well as POSIX apps?
I dont think OSX runs native apps in a way that would be recognizable to a UNIX admin. Hence my "2 parallel systems" categorization.
Note that the Windows bit is probably a little off. With Windows the subsystems are so far removed from eachother that one cannot make calls across subsystems (this is not emulation, BTW, but rather a POSIX/UNIX system on an NT kernel). On OSX you can. However, this might not be done in practice a great deal.
Would it be acceptable to record live footage of your front door 24/7? And then publish it as a browsable online database of anyone entering and exiting?
There are a couple of issues here that don't occur with Google Street. The first is that unlike Google Street, a browsable online database of anyone entering/exiting WOULD make burglary a great deal easier. Secondly it would be a close parallel of someone sitting in a car 24/7 and watching my front-door. In such a case, I think there might be crimes committed. After all, this wouldn't be fundamentally from someone sitting out in front, live-blogging about when people enter/exit. If there isn't a crime covering it, I would see no problem passing a law criminalizing that sort of thing.
I would draw the line using a "real person test." If it is OK for a real person to go and do something, it is OK for a real person to take photos in the same manner. If I can walk down the street, I can do so taking photos. If I can sit in front of a bank 24/7 in my car, then I can record who goes in/out as well. I still think it is polite for people to remove photos of PEOPLE on request, but fixed objects are fundamentally different.
There are reasonable expectations of privacy in public places but they are greatly reduced. I don't see Google Street as being across the line because it mostly amounts to a visual record of what the streetview car did legally.
What takes more time? Driving around a neighborhood or virtually cruising it on Google Street?
My experience doing virtual walkthroughs of routes I was going to drive is that it always takes at least 5x longer to go through the same info on Google Street. Really, if you are going to spend an hour casing out a neighborhood, you are going to do it by car, not by Google Street.
Can you provide me an address of such a building? It would be interesting to see if it is already up on Google Street.....
The fact that you are uncomfortable coming to terms with the fact that your privacy when outdoors in your front lawn is only an illusion is irrelevant.
I have ALWAYS assumed that there is no privacy in one's front lawn. One's fenced (with an 8ft fence) back yard is a different matter though.
But that only affects publication in some countries that include copyright protections for buildings.
It doesn't stop a tourist from the US from taking such pictures and publishing them, distributing them worldwide, for example.
Ok. Typical UNIX systems tend to be built around the assumption that a system is made of small pieces, loosely woven. Admins expect this sort of behavior. In this view, one has a large toolset of applications which can be readily combined and recombined fairly easily, but are maintained separately. This is taken further by the concept of shared libraries where one may remove shared functionality from a number of programs and include them as a library that more programs can use. Different versions of these libraries can exist side-by-side as needed.
Mac OS X software is built around an idea that one has a monolithic platform framework and smaller applications on top of that framework. This is sort of a "big pieces, tightly coupled" approach which is absolutely foreign to a UNIX admin. OSX apps don't generally use shared libraries (Posix apps running on OSX are a different matter). Instead these apps are specifically about as far from what a UNIX admin would expect as one can get.
Now, on OSX you do generally have a fairly full BSD command set, which is helpful. OS X is a great platform for developing UNIX software. However, if you had a bunch of Mac desktops in a business, you fundamnetally could not expect UNIX administrators to pick these up without a LOT more ramp-up time than would be expected for more *nix-like OS's. All the tools are there, but the system is just differently designed. Also, this doesn't mean you can't run UNIX software on a Mac either. However when you do, you will notice that there are BIG differences in how UNIX vs OSX apps work on OSX.....
I actually think that there are two things killing traditional UNIX:
1) Lack of economy of scale in vertically integrated markets.
2) Focus exclusively on hardware/performance rather than admin-friendliness. While Linux is taking some time to catch up on the former, it is light-years ahead of traditional UNIX flavors on the latter. Given some professional attention by UNIX-vendors ike IBM, it will catch up.
I predict that in 10 years, the only major UNIX-like systems on the market will be Linux and *BSD.
OSX is NOT UNIX.
A better way to look at it is that OSX is a very non-UNIX-like system that offers a parallel UNIX system.
For example, consider the differences on OSX between how a typical app uses shared libraries (or rather doesn't) and a typical POSIX app uses shared libraries. The fact is that OSX and standard OSX software is designed with VERY, VERY different ideas than UNIX software. Just because you can do UNIX-like stuff on OSX makes it no more UNIX than Windows is of you install SUA.
You are missing the point. Mac OS offers really two parallel systems. One is fairly UNIXy and the other is less like UNIX than Windows is..... For example, see the way typical Mac software uses shared libraries (they don't).
Windows has as much a claim to be UNIXy as Mac OS does, at least once one installes the Subsystem for UNIX applications.
Really, standard commercial UNIX is dying. The economy of scale is killing it and Linux/BSD will take over. Mac OSX is nice as a desktop system used by developers of UNIX software, but it is not a UNIX system in any meaningful sense and no UNIX admin will feel comfortable with OSX on the basis of UNIX experience.
Agreed here. MacOS is a very un-UNIX system built on top of a UNIX kernel. You can do a lot of UNIXy things with it but standard Mac software is further from the UNIX way than Windows software is.....
How about we restrict Google Street from "Affluent neighborhoods" so burglers don;t know where to go?
Of course in this case they can find areas where Google Street View is not available and that would narrow their searches considerably, right?
Sort of like bluring Google Satellite around "high value" terrorist targets as it makes a search for such targets a great deal simpler!
I'm sorry you don't feel that the answer is helpful, but I myself cannot see any other acceptable answer, as "I don't like that, I know it's legal but quit it" is unacceptable to me, for what should be obvious reasons
I disagree with that statement. Certainly there are many legal things where we can organize resistance. Certainly if one says "I know the MPAA's insistance on stronger DRM is legal, but I don't like it, so I think we should boycott them and stop seeing movies" is quite reasonable.
What I have a problem with is mob rule here though. There are plenty of ways of handling disagreements about what is tasteful or acceptable as a matter of social contract which don't involve mob rule.
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, would you object to that? At some point, wouldn't the Flickr solution turn out to be FAR MORE of a privacy invasion than Google Street?
Or is it just that they aren't so systematic about this? Bazar is OK, cathederal is not? Crowdsourcing is good, company doing it themselves is not?
Furthermore satellite photos are often detailed enough I can count the people walking down the street.....
Of course they don't! To them the intertubes is a series of nets....
The real issue though is that few people around government have ANY idea the complexity of these problems. I have just begun to develop a mathematical/algebreic system for modelling security of computer networks and it is quite intereting the challenges involved in doing this. However, I can't find anyone who has tried to tackle this problem before mathematically, let alone anyone who has succeeded. The goal of such a system would be to:
1) Mathematically prove that an isolated network is sufficiently isolated as to make it IMPOSSIBLE to attack via automated network tools from an arbitrary point.
2) Mathematically represent the security of a network's ability to contain and detect compromises.
3) Mathematically represent relatice security and containment controls such that one can determine how secure critical systems in fact are.
I don't know how it helps you if you are an honest citizen; but for a criminal such functions may be of some use (though I saw some comments made by people "in the know" who say it isn't so.)
Some examples for how it helps ME as an honest citizen:
1) When I am going somewhere I am not familiar with, I can do a preview of the route on Google Street. Then I can more easily note landmarks, etc. what key intersections look like, etc.
2) If my wife calls me and says she is lost, if I can get Google Street up, I can get a fair sense of what she is seeing once I have an intersection. Much, much better than guiding someone around over the phone using a map.
I will leave the points about virtual tourism to others and focus exclusively on PRACTICAL value.
Are you aware of software to build sophisticated 3-d models from user-submitted photographs?
CNN demonstrated some of this during the presidential inauguration. It is capable of some pretty surprising stuff......
Flickr I think does map-to-photo correlation. It might even be searchable. Do you have a problem with this? Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Also I don;t think this case involved cameras running 24 hours per day on every street corner.
Ok, so suppose instead Google offered, say, free photo hosting and as part of the terms and conditions, reserved the rights to use all these photos for their google streets app?
Do you have a problem with Flickr's photo-to-map capabilities?
Even if they could take all these photos and build the same 3d models out of them?
zl ubhfr
There you go :-)
I don't think this would hold up in court. If you are on a right-of-way, taking photos of buildings within reasonable limits (for example, some special camera able to see through the glare of windows, and enhance contents inside might not be ok), I think you would have some fairly strong first-amendment rights to take the photos. The fact that police overstep Constitutional limits from time to time doesn't mean that this is permitted.
There have been a few cases in Washington State too which, iirc, have gone to court.
Furthermore, it isn't as if burglers can't drive around the neighborhood scouting it out themselves or wouldn't be likely to do so regardless of whether Google Street posts the images.
So what about tourists taking photos on vacation? Do they have the right to take photos of interesting buildings?
Suppose Google Maps solicited private photos rather than taking the photos themselves. Woudl that make a difference? It would certainly make it impossible to drive Google photographers out of town since tourists might be able to make a little extra money photographing streets for Google.....