You can fly as low as the law allows. I do not know what that is, if it is a federal law, or governed at the state level. But the bottom line is that Google must comply with laws. They cannot do whatever they want.
I didn't read the article (surprise). If they are suing beyond the trespassing, then they are schmucks. However, I was only replying to the 'Luddite' comment which I took to be directed at anyone who puts up a barrier between their house and the public.
Nope. The only legal requirement is that Google not set foot on property if it is marked as private property. Google can photograph it from a public street, or any other public land. They can fly over it. They can take pictures from a satellite. They can set up shop in a building across the street (with permission) and go paparazzi to their heart's content.
They simply cannot step onto the private property without permission.
If there was no sign, then Google did nothing wrong.
FTS: "The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property."
At least read the summary.....
(on an unrelated topic, I have to wait more than 4 minutes between posts now. Excellent karma and no downmodded comment in weeks. Excellent system here, guys)
I do wonder whether it's actually the majority, but at any rate those people will be found and punished for this particular crime, while others won't.
*Shrug*. I could make the same argument about any other law. The fact is tying up emergency services is wrong, clearly creates the potential for harm to others and should be a crime if it isn't already. My gut is that you will find that a handful of people cause a significant percentage of the waste of time. Bust a few of these people, make sure it makes the papers that these folks got prison time or a hefty fine (even if later it gets commuted), and you will see a significant decrease. The fact is most folks are sheep, not mastermind criminals.
1) The fact that it is technically doable doesn't mean that folks will work around the caller id. The majority of folks do stuff like this on a spur of the moment impulse. Most of them aren't thinking far enough ahead to try this.
2) I could be wrong on this, but I believe the police (in the US anyhow) won't be spoofed. I believe there is another protocol in place where they can actually record where you are calling from.
I have nothing useful to add to this discussion except to send your father a Thanks for working on things like this. I love my job in IT, but my job will never have as big an impact on humanity as folks like your dad.
Ok. If "nothing is counterproductive to implement" then you don't mind an auditor's request to add security questions to retrieve passwords with such hard to discover questions as "Mother's maiden name", "City of Birth", etc. etc., right?
Its been a while since I've dealt with it, but the biggest that came to mind was adding "security questions" to retrieve your password. This not only required a lot of time to implement, but actually decreases the security in my humble opinion.
Having worked in the banking industry for nearly a decade, I was a bit skeptical. Many times we will have some security firm come in and look at our public facing web site, and come back with a list of 25-30 items that are 'security issues'. Most of them are complete crap, and maybe 1 or 2 are legitimate concerns. Management gets in a tizzy and insists that all items must be addressed, even when many items make no sense or are even counterproductive to implement.
I skimmed the underlying study (the article itself was worthless except for the link), and some of the concerns are very valid. For example, I have NO idea why a bank wouldn't insist on using SSL for any banking transaction.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you get this list? I'd like to be able to do more research on this, and I'd like a starting point.
Does anyone know if Titan is in tidal lock with Saturn? Anyone know if there exists a list of which moons are in tidal lock and which aren't?
You can fly as low as the law allows. I do not know what that is, if it is a federal law, or governed at the state level. But the bottom line is that Google must comply with laws. They cannot do whatever they want.
I didn't read the article (surprise). If they are suing beyond the trespassing, then they are schmucks. However, I was only replying to the 'Luddite' comment which I took to be directed at anyone who puts up a barrier between their house and the public.
Nope. The only legal requirement is that Google not set foot on property if it is marked as private property. Google can photograph it from a public street, or any other public land. They can fly over it. They can take pictures from a satellite. They can set up shop in a building across the street (with permission) and go paparazzi to their heart's content.
They simply cannot step onto the private property without permission.
That might be your opinion. It might be Google's opinion. But the law states otherwise. Google needs to obey the law.
If there was no sign, then Google did nothing wrong.
FTS: "The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property."
At least read the summary.....
(on an unrelated topic, I have to wait more than 4 minutes between posts now. Excellent karma and no downmodded comment in weeks. Excellent system here, guys)
Luddites? For not wanting folks driving on their private property? I am not sure why Google should be above the law.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind Google street view coming in your house unannounced and taking pictures of whatever they want.
I never forgive, and I rarely forget.
That is a sure way to live a sad, lonely, disgruntled life.
For tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his owne petard.
Fixed it for you.
-- Old English Grammar Nazi
I do wonder whether it's actually the majority, but at any rate those people will be found and punished for this particular crime, while others won't.
*Shrug*. I could make the same argument about any other law. The fact is tying up emergency services is wrong, clearly creates the potential for harm to others and should be a crime if it isn't already. My gut is that you will find that a handful of people cause a significant percentage of the waste of time. Bust a few of these people, make sure it makes the papers that these folks got prison time or a hefty fine (even if later it gets commuted), and you will see a significant decrease. The fact is most folks are sheep, not mastermind criminals.
Two issues:
1) The fact that it is technically doable doesn't mean that folks will work around the caller id. The majority of folks do stuff like this on a spur of the moment impulse. Most of them aren't thinking far enough ahead to try this.
2) I could be wrong on this, but I believe the police (in the US anyhow) won't be spoofed. I believe there is another protocol in place where they can actually record where you are calling from.
Yeah. And mine said I have no signs of dementia. Clearly this test is fubared!
(why do I have to wait 7 mintues between posts)?
I have nothing useful to add to this discussion except to send your father a Thanks for working on things like this. I love my job in IT, but my job will never have as big an impact on humanity as folks like your dad.
Have you ever seen his karma? It can use all the boosting it can get.
Some moderators will mod a funny post "informative" to counter the negate karma of others who mod it "offtopic" or "troll". Funny mods give no karma.
WHOOSH!
Are you illiterate? There are a ton of posts acknowledging it more than an hour before your post.
Ok. If "nothing is counterproductive to implement" then you don't mind an auditor's request to add security questions to retrieve passwords with such hard to discover questions as "Mother's maiden name", "City of Birth", etc. etc., right?
Its been a while since I've dealt with it, but the biggest that came to mind was adding "security questions" to retrieve your password. This not only required a lot of time to implement, but actually decreases the security in my humble opinion.
Having worked in the banking industry for nearly a decade, I was a bit skeptical. Many times we will have some security firm come in and look at our public facing web site, and come back with a list of 25-30 items that are 'security issues'. Most of them are complete crap, and maybe 1 or 2 are legitimate concerns. Management gets in a tizzy and insists that all items must be addressed, even when many items make no sense or are even counterproductive to implement.
I skimmed the underlying study (the article itself was worthless except for the link), and some of the concerns are very valid. For example, I have NO idea why a bank wouldn't insist on using SSL for any banking transaction.
It had to go through Slashdot's rigorous peer review process before getting published.
Bats are mammals not birds.
Intentionally Missing the Point,
mylongnickname
Hi. We were talking about how to get Windows XP, not your weekend plans.
Thanks.
It is good to be the IT Manager ;)
Am I the only person who clicked on the link (hyperlink behind "Vote McCain in 2008". It takes you to McCain food services. It was a joke, folks.