I see this less as a replacement for Google Maps and a big improvement for GIS integration into iWork Numbers. It is one area that Excel is weak in and one in which Apple can gain a competitive advantage. It will be Apple's answer to Microsofts MapPoint (which was sold as a separate program, but should have been a part of Excel).
In addition to Numbers, Apple will integrate data maps and provide additional geospatial data integration in the iPhone and MobileMe platforms.
Finally they may provide a separate program for data visualization that would simplify (and be much more cost competitive) than programs such as Tableau (an excellent program but only available for PC's now).
Talk to me about Numbers when it actually can be used for Engineering Data Acquisition where Numerical Analysis is critical to crunching out Velocity curves in flow rates through a thin wall pressure vessel, et.al.
Quattro Pro used to do such and now Matlab, Maple, Octave and other applications far more capable do such work.
Extend Numbers to access such data sources and leverage their routines and you definitely get a thumbs up from me about iWorks wanting to be taken as a serious application for numbers.
Anyhow I am confused by your response. You seem to believe that Google is a serial lawbreaker, but that they aren't breaking the law.
Reasonable expectation of privacy is a well-established principle of U.S. Constitutional law. The courts have been careful to not allow it to go crazy. If it was extended as you suggest, every photo you took on any public street could be subject to a lawsuit. Is that really what you want?
These issues have been in the news recently. An incident in Switzerland being the most recent example I recall.
As for law breaking, the Books program is a case in point.
Yes, I would like the law in the U.S. changed so that commercial, non-profit and governmental organizations can't take, use or store people's images without permission, except perhaps in cases of legitimate news coverage. (A celebrity dining out isn't news.)
One of the dangers of Google collecting all this information on people is that the government may decide to "data mine" them at some point, perhaps for "national security" purposes. Even if Google were totally benign, which I don't believe they are, it's still a danger to have that much personal information in anyone's hands. (The government has tried this before with search engine companies.)
I think the problem with Google Maps on the iPhone is that Google doesn't allow third party developers on the iPhone to tie into the APIs to make use of the maps to create their own applications.
If Apple integrates it's own maps, third party developers likely could tie into the APIs to create their own applications. Further, if Google pulled it's map software, that'd be a huge blow to the iPhone and iTouch.
These issues have been in the news recently. An incident in Switzerland being the most recent example I recall.
As for law breaking, the Books program is a case in point.
They were sued, they settled the issues and have moved forward with the program. Name a company that hasn't been sued. Does that make them all serial law breakers?
I'm not a big fan of Google BTW, so I'm not defending them per se. I think you just overstate your case.
Quote:
Yes, I would like the law in the U.S. changed so that commercial, non-profit and governmental organizations can't take, use or store people's images without permission, except perhaps in cases of legitimate news coverage. (A celebrity dining out isn't news.)
One of the dangers of Google collecting all this information on people is that the government may decide to "data mine" them at some point, perhaps for "national security" purposes. Even if Google were totally benign, which I don't believe they are, it's still a danger to have that much personal information in anyone's hands. (The government has tried this before with search engine companies.)
That's a pretty high-handed suggestion. Even the EU rules don't go nearly that far. You would pretty much put photographers out of business.
They were sued, they settled the issues and have moved forward with the program. Name a company that hasn't been sued. Does that make them all serial law breakers?
I'm not a big fan of Google BTW, so I'm not defending them per se. I think you just overstate your case.
That's a pretty high-handed suggestion. Even the EU rules don't go nearly that far. You would pretty much put photographers out of business.
There's such a thing as paranoia.
They engaged in flagrant, large scale copyright infringement. They were sued by groups who tried to profit themselves in a ridiculous settlement agreement that was tossed, in no small part because the DoJ said the settlement wasn't legal, and also because the settlement trampled on the rights of many who were not party to the original suit. Then there's the whole thing about how they assert that telecommunications law doesn't apply to Google voice and are refusing to connect calls to numbers they don't want to in violation of the law. I'm sure if I search my memory and the NY Times history I could find at least a few other instances of google violating the law, so, it's not much of a stretch to call them a serial law breaker.
Would my privacy suggestion be enacted into law? Probably not, even, as you say, in the EU. However, I still believe that people ought to be able to expect a lot more privacy than they currently can, which isn't what I would consider a high-handed suggestion.
If by paranoia, you refer to the photography issue, I think your assertion is absurd. If you are referring to the government trying to get search records from search companies, you obviously need to follow the news a bit:
By paranoia, I mean I would not want to live in your world, which seems to be all about fear to me. You'd happily wipe out rights we've had for centuries to conform to your paranoid views. No thank you.
By paranoia, I mean I would not want to live in your world, which seems to be all about fear to me. You'd happily wipe out rights we've had for centuries to conform to your paranoid views. No thank you.
Rights for companies to use people's "likenesses" without their permission to make money? I don't think there are any rights that we've had for centuries at issue here other than the right to privacy.
T... Yes, I would like the law in the U.S. changed so that commercial, non-profit and governmental organizations (sic) can't take, use or store people's images without permission, except perhaps in cases of legitimate news coverage. ...
I have to say this is absolute nutbar crazy stuff here.
For the entire history of photography and law, in multiple countries and in virtually all "western" countries it's always been held that what one sees in a public place one can photograph in a pubic place.
The only modern countries where one cannot do this, have always been held up as examples of the worst kind of totalitarianism or fascism. This freedom is one of the basic rights which has historically defined "democratic" societies
I have to say this is absolute nutbar crazy stuff here.
For the entire history of photography and law, in multiple countries and in virtually all "western" countries it's always been held that what one sees in a public place one can photograph in a pubic place.
The only modern countries where one cannot do this, have always been held up as examples of the worst kind of totalitarianism or fascism. This freedom is one of the basic rights which has historically defined "democratic" societies
Really? Usually, it's those totalitarian countries where the government spends lots of time photographing its citizens. I don't really see why you would have problems with a law that forbids the establishment of a surveillance state.
Since when have companies been allowed to use your picture in their products or marketing without your permission? So, why should Google, or anyone else, be allowed to incorporate the recognizable images of countless people in their maps product without permission?
I have no problem with one photographing what one sees in a public place. If you actually read what I wrote instead of becoming nutbar crazy yourself in reaction to it, you might have comprehended that.
Privacy and freedom go hand in hand. Undermine one and you undermine the other. I know, totally crazy ideas those.
Rights for companies to use people's "likenesses" without their permission to make money?
Companies? Why companies? What about individuals?
You need to study up. Just a little will probably do. Visiting an art museum would certainly be a good first step.
Quote:
I don't think there are any rights that we've had for centuries at issue here other than the right to privacy.
So you would say, but you'd be wrong. Painters and photographers have making images in streets and parks and every other public place you could mention forever, and nobody made the odd claims of invasion of privacy that you seem to think is so normal.
You want to remove the branding of the most well known mapping software in the world and replace it with an unknown solution as the default on the iPhone?
I hope you realize that every time Apple talks about the maps application, it's not called "Maps", but "Google Maps". And their name is displayed prominently. Trying to remove that from the phone (even if they can download it on the App Store) would throw a TON of people into a fit.
App name changes from "Google Maps" to "Maps," functionality is roughly similar, and Joe Average doesn't notice the Google divorce. Sort of like how "Text" was changed to "Messages" and no one noticed.
Quote:
if anything, the purchase of this company is probably more about getting more data sources for the Google Maps app than anything else. It's about making their implementation of Google Maps better. I mean, the Google Maps app on the iPhone is nothing special, and uses public APIs. It's not like Google can yank control and deny access or something (they could, but they're not that dumb). I'd say it's more about making sure that the Apple implementation of Google Maps is better than the Android version.
I don't think Apple would outright buy another company just for the purpose of making their phone's map software better than another phone's map software. That's a colossal waste of money, if true.
Since the Google Maps app is developed in-house at Apple, and not at Google, I doubt very much that the intention is to merge Placebase's data with Google's map sources. It's possible, but I don't see it, especially since it's not like Placebase had a monopoly on map information in the first place: they just came up with the idea of overlaying different types of data on a map. The data itself, such as area crime rates, are all public domain.
One piece of information that's relevant to this story that I haven't seen discussed: there's some word floating around that the real reason Apple has rejected (or hasn't accepted yet, depending on who you believe) the Google Voice app (and Google Latitude) is because they believe Google has too much influence on the iPhone as it stands, and Apple wants to prevent further encroachment. If Apple purchased Placebase in order to divest the Google portion of Google Maps, that meshes pretty nicely.
Yes, companies ought to be restricted. No individuals ought not.
Perhaps, that it occurred to you to write that question, it might have triggered some small thought that your posts have nothing to do with what was said?
Since the whole point is to protect individual freedom and privacy from organizational (public and private) encroachment, it would make no sense at all to restrict individual rights in this manner since, when engaged in by individuals acting in their personal interests, the taking of public photographs has no significant impact on the privacy of others, at least not relative to the loss of freedom that would otherwise be incurred.
This would not affect the arts in any way. Nor would it affect news reportage since I clearly indicated there needs to be an exception for those purposes. It would however prevent Google from using identifiable images of people in their street view pictures. (And these pictures are not art, even though it is possible that someone could make art of them.)
The only thing my proposal would affect are organizational incursions on privacy.
Now, as to who needs to study up, it would seem to be you. I suggest starting with a little light reading comprehension, then, perhaps some logic and reasoning skills. And pick up a newspaper for god's sake; how could anyone not know that the Books settlement was scuttled?
One piece of information that's relevant to this story that I haven't seen discussed: there's some word floating around that the real reason Apple has rejected (or hasn't accepted yet, depending on who you believe) the Google Voice app (and Google Latitude) is because they believe Google has too much influence on the iPhone as it stands, and Apple wants to prevent further encroachment. If Apple purchased Placebase in order to divest the Google portion of Google Maps, that meshes pretty nicely.
The point has been raised here. Unfortunately, people are so intent on their AT&T hate or Google love that it's very much a minority view.
Yes, companies ought to be restricted. No individuals ought not.
Perhaps, that it occurred to you to write that question, it might have triggered some small thought that your posts have nothing to do with what was said?
Since the whole point is to protect individual freedom and privacy from organizational (public and private) encroachment, it would make no sense at all to restrict individual rights in this manner since, when engaged in by individuals acting in their personal interests, the taking of public photographs has no significant impact on the privacy of others, at least not relative to the loss of freedom that would otherwise be incurred.
This would not affect the arts in any way. Nor would it affect news reportage since I clearly indicated there needs to be an exception for those purposes. It would however prevent Google from using identifiable images of people in their street view pictures. (And these pictures are not art, even though it is possible that someone could make art of them.)
The only thing my proposal would affect are organizational incursions on privacy.
Now, as to who needs to study up, it would seem to be you. I suggest starting with a little light reading comprehension, then, perhaps some logic and reasoning skills. And pick up a newspaper for god's sake; how could anyone not know that the Books settlement was scuttled?
From the ridiculous to the absurd. You think distinctions that can't be made, should not only be made, they should be made the law. Your suggestions have no practical applications that I can determine, and massive potential for abuse and litigation.
I would suggest that if you are so concerned about your privacy that you not go out in public without wearing a ski mask. The rest of us don't feel violated if we show up in photographs.
From the ridiculous to the absurd. You think distinctions that can't be made, should not only be made, they should be made the law. Your suggestions have no practical applications that I can determine, and massive potential for abuse and litigation.
I would suggest that if you are so concerned about your privacy that you not go out in public without wearing a ski mask. The rest of us don't feel violated if we show up in photographs.
Thank you for your vaguely worded criticisms. It's unclear if you just felt the need to respond and had nothing to say, or whether these represent the full clarity of your thoughts.
However, contrary to your assertion, a significant number of people are concerned about the privacy implications of street view pictures. Since you apparently don't follow the news, you would of course not be aware of this.
Feel free to follow up when you have an actually lucid and intelligent argument and something more than personal attacks.
Insults are not an argument. So far, it seems that's mainly what you've got since you include at least one in every post.
People can be "concerned" about all manners of things, but that does not mean we need to overthrow centuries of law and tradition just to pander to them. Your arguments are absurd because they lack in practical application or the ability to set basic parameters of what would be legal or not. You cannot for instance distinguish between "companies" and "individuals" in any sensible way. You also can't make useful distinctions between "news" and any other use -- and I notice that for you even news might not be a legitimate use of personal images. And what does the image need to show for it to be an invasion of privacy, a face? How close up? If so why? If you take a picture of a street, do you need written permission from everyone on the street to use the photo? If not, why not? These are only a few of the major issues with your concept of privacy I can think of right off the top of my head.
Finally, you are wrong to say that the Google book deal was "scuttled." The original settlement from a year ago has run into a number of problems, and some are certainly trying to kill it by raising antitrust issues among others, but as of today, it's still in place.
Insults are not an argument. So far, it seems that's mainly what you've got since you include at least one in every post.
People can be "concerned" about all manners of things, but that does not mean we need to overthrow centuries of law and tradition just to pander to them. Your arguments are absurd because they lack in practical application or the ability to set basic parameters of what would be legal or not. You cannot for instance distinguish between "companies" and "individuals" in any sensible way. You also can't make useful distinctions between "news" and any other use -- and I notice that for you even news might not be a legitimate use of personal images. And what does the image need to show for it to be an invasion of privacy, a face? How close up? If so why? If you take a picture of a street, do you need written permission from everyone on the street to use the photo? If not, why not? These are only a few of the major issues with your concept of privacy I can think of right off the top of my head.
Finally, you are wrong to say that the Google book deal was "scuttled." The original settlement from a year ago has run into a number of problems, and some are certainly trying to kill it by raising antitrust issues among others, but as of today, it's still in place.
Yes, you are correct, insults are not an argument and, so far, that's mainly what I've gotten from you.
As far as the points in your current post:
1. There are no "centuries of law and tradition" related to photography.
2. It's strange that you "notice that for you even news might not be a legitimate use of personal images," since I explicitly stated the exact opposite.
3. It's a bold declaration that, "You cannot for instance distinguish between "companies" and "individuals" in any sensible way," but, without any supporting argument, it nothing but that. I think it's quite simple to distinguish individuals: they are individuals. In most cases, it's also quite easy to distinguish companies. The are probably a few cases where one could legitimately raise the question, "Is this person acting as an individual or a company?" but this is not so overwhelmingly complex that it cannot be dealt with. For example, the law could be made not to apply to individuals not acting as agents of what is obviously a company as an individual's actions would not threaten privacy in a way that the concerted efforts of a, say, large company might. If companies were not allowed to use and store such images, this would eliminate any freelancers market that might attempt to take advantage of a loophole in the law.
4. In regard to your questions on what constitutes invasion of privacy and what permissions ought to be required a) yes, it ought to be required that every recognizable person's permission be obtained, and b) it shouldn't be hard to establish a standard for recognizability based on the amount of detail available for a given individual or even, as facial and body recognition technology advances, by defining recognizable as something based on that. Of course, companies wishing to use "street view" images, could simply avoid all liability and ambiguity, and the need for permissions by taking steps to render the individuals unrecognizable.
5. The Google Books settlement is dead in its original form and it is not "in place" in any sense of the phrase. The parties were told unequivocally that it would not be accepted as written. Whether it will ever be "in place" in any form is unknown.
Your argument basically boils down to, "Protecting privacy is a difficult undertaking, so we should not attempt it." Which isn't really an argument, it's just throwing up one's hand and saying, "We just have to let them do whatever they want."
Yes, you are correct, insults are not an argument and, so far, that's mainly what I've gotten from you.
No, you haven't had any from me. I realize some people take a disagreement as a form of personal attack, but that doesn't make it one.
And no, you did not seem prepared to exclude "news" Quoting you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yes, I would like the law in the U.S. changed so that commercial, non-profit and governmental organizations can't take, use or store people's images without permission, except perhaps in cases of legitimate news coverage.
Except perhaps. And "legitimate news," whatever that means. Sorry for taking you at your word. My mistake.
You have also misrepresented several things I have said, for the convenience of your argument I suppose. Not good.
This discussion has gone beyond unfruitful. I'm done with it.
No, you haven't had any from me. I realize some people take a disagreement as a form of personal attack, but that doesn't make it one.
I think I can distinguish fairly well between disagreement and personal attack, including one embedded within the other. But, yes, your aggressive, insulting attitude did provoke an utter lack of respect for you, which I freely expressed. I suggest a little honest self-appraisal on your part.
Comments
I see this less as a replacement for Google Maps and a big improvement for GIS integration into iWork Numbers. It is one area that Excel is weak in and one in which Apple can gain a competitive advantage. It will be Apple's answer to Microsofts MapPoint (which was sold as a separate program, but should have been a part of Excel).
In addition to Numbers, Apple will integrate data maps and provide additional geospatial data integration in the iPhone and MobileMe platforms.
Finally they may provide a separate program for data visualization that would simplify (and be much more cost competitive) than programs such as Tableau (an excellent program but only available for PC's now).
Talk to me about Numbers when it actually can be used for Engineering Data Acquisition where Numerical Analysis is critical to crunching out Velocity curves in flow rates through a thin wall pressure vessel, et.al.
Quattro Pro used to do such and now Matlab, Maple, Octave and other applications far more capable do such work.
Extend Numbers to access such data sources and leverage their routines and you definitely get a thumbs up from me about iWorks wanting to be taken as a serious application for numbers.
Which ones?
Anyhow I am confused by your response. You seem to believe that Google is a serial lawbreaker, but that they aren't breaking the law.
Reasonable expectation of privacy is a well-established principle of U.S. Constitutional law. The courts have been careful to not allow it to go crazy. If it was extended as you suggest, every photo you took on any public street could be subject to a lawsuit. Is that really what you want?
These issues have been in the news recently. An incident in Switzerland being the most recent example I recall.
As for law breaking, the Books program is a case in point.
Yes, I would like the law in the U.S. changed so that commercial, non-profit and governmental organizations can't take, use or store people's images without permission, except perhaps in cases of legitimate news coverage. (A celebrity dining out isn't news.)
One of the dangers of Google collecting all this information on people is that the government may decide to "data mine" them at some point, perhaps for "national security" purposes. Even if Google were totally benign, which I don't believe they are, it's still a danger to have that much personal information in anyone's hands. (The government has tried this before with search engine companies.)
If Apple integrates it's own maps, third party developers likely could tie into the APIs to create their own applications. Further, if Google pulled it's map software, that'd be a huge blow to the iPhone and iTouch.
These issues have been in the news recently. An incident in Switzerland being the most recent example I recall.
As for law breaking, the Books program is a case in point.
They were sued, they settled the issues and have moved forward with the program. Name a company that hasn't been sued. Does that make them all serial law breakers?
I'm not a big fan of Google BTW, so I'm not defending them per se. I think you just overstate your case.
Yes, I would like the law in the U.S. changed so that commercial, non-profit and governmental organizations can't take, use or store people's images without permission, except perhaps in cases of legitimate news coverage. (A celebrity dining out isn't news.)
One of the dangers of Google collecting all this information on people is that the government may decide to "data mine" them at some point, perhaps for "national security" purposes. Even if Google were totally benign, which I don't believe they are, it's still a danger to have that much personal information in anyone's hands. (The government has tried this before with search engine companies.)
That's a pretty high-handed suggestion. Even the EU rules don't go nearly that far. You would pretty much put photographers out of business.
There's such a thing as paranoia.
They were sued, they settled the issues and have moved forward with the program. Name a company that hasn't been sued. Does that make them all serial law breakers?
I'm not a big fan of Google BTW, so I'm not defending them per se. I think you just overstate your case.
That's a pretty high-handed suggestion. Even the EU rules don't go nearly that far. You would pretty much put photographers out of business.
There's such a thing as paranoia.
They engaged in flagrant, large scale copyright infringement. They were sued by groups who tried to profit themselves in a ridiculous settlement agreement that was tossed, in no small part because the DoJ said the settlement wasn't legal, and also because the settlement trampled on the rights of many who were not party to the original suit. Then there's the whole thing about how they assert that telecommunications law doesn't apply to Google voice and are refusing to connect calls to numbers they don't want to in violation of the law. I'm sure if I search my memory and the NY Times history I could find at least a few other instances of google violating the law, so, it's not much of a stretch to call them a serial law breaker.
Would my privacy suggestion be enacted into law? Probably not, even, as you say, in the EU. However, I still believe that people ought to be able to expect a lot more privacy than they currently can, which isn't what I would consider a high-handed suggestion.
If by paranoia, you refer to the photography issue, I think your assertion is absurd. If you are referring to the government trying to get search records from search companies, you obviously need to follow the news a bit:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5165854
By paranoia, I mean I would not want to live in your world, which seems to be all about fear to me. You'd happily wipe out rights we've had for centuries to conform to your paranoid views. No thank you.
Rights for companies to use people's "likenesses" without their permission to make money? I don't think there are any rights that we've had for centuries at issue here other than the right to privacy.
You seem a little nutty yourself.
T... Yes, I would like the law in the U.S. changed so that commercial, non-profit and governmental organizations (sic) can't take, use or store people's images without permission, except perhaps in cases of legitimate news coverage. ...
I have to say this is absolute nutbar crazy stuff here.
For the entire history of photography and law, in multiple countries and in virtually all "western" countries it's always been held that what one sees in a public place one can photograph in a pubic place.
The only modern countries where one cannot do this, have always been held up as examples of the worst kind of totalitarianism or fascism. This freedom is one of the basic rights which has historically defined "democratic" societies
I have to say this is absolute nutbar crazy stuff here.
For the entire history of photography and law, in multiple countries and in virtually all "western" countries it's always been held that what one sees in a public place one can photograph in a pubic place.
The only modern countries where one cannot do this, have always been held up as examples of the worst kind of totalitarianism or fascism. This freedom is one of the basic rights which has historically defined "democratic" societies
Really? Usually, it's those totalitarian countries where the government spends lots of time photographing its citizens. I don't really see why you would have problems with a law that forbids the establishment of a surveillance state.
Since when have companies been allowed to use your picture in their products or marketing without your permission? So, why should Google, or anyone else, be allowed to incorporate the recognizable images of countless people in their maps product without permission?
I have no problem with one photographing what one sees in a public place. If you actually read what I wrote instead of becoming nutbar crazy yourself in reaction to it, you might have comprehended that.
Privacy and freedom go hand in hand. Undermine one and you undermine the other. I know, totally crazy ideas those.
1) Keep google from trying to grab you by the balls in renegotiations
2) keep the SEC etc happy that Google and Apple are too closely in bed together
3) Kill map competition "on paper" for Google ( because Apple and Google are too closely in bed together )
4) Give Apple leverage when asking for API changes to google maps to support advanced features apple might want ( or want exclusively! )
Just my guess
Rights for companies to use people's "likenesses" without their permission to make money?
Companies? Why companies? What about individuals?
You need to study up. Just a little will probably do. Visiting an art museum would certainly be a good first step.
I don't think there are any rights that we've had for centuries at issue here other than the right to privacy.
So you would say, but you'd be wrong. Painters and photographers have making images in streets and parks and every other public place you could mention forever, and nobody made the odd claims of invasion of privacy that you seem to think is so normal.
You want to remove the branding of the most well known mapping software in the world and replace it with an unknown solution as the default on the iPhone?
I hope you realize that every time Apple talks about the maps application, it's not called "Maps", but "Google Maps". And their name is displayed prominently. Trying to remove that from the phone (even if they can download it on the App Store) would throw a TON of people into a fit.
App name changes from "Google Maps" to "Maps," functionality is roughly similar, and Joe Average doesn't notice the Google divorce. Sort of like how "Text" was changed to "Messages" and no one noticed.
if anything, the purchase of this company is probably more about getting more data sources for the Google Maps app than anything else. It's about making their implementation of Google Maps better. I mean, the Google Maps app on the iPhone is nothing special, and uses public APIs. It's not like Google can yank control and deny access or something (they could, but they're not that dumb). I'd say it's more about making sure that the Apple implementation of Google Maps is better than the Android version.
I don't think Apple would outright buy another company just for the purpose of making their phone's map software better than another phone's map software. That's a colossal waste of money, if true.
Since the Google Maps app is developed in-house at Apple, and not at Google, I doubt very much that the intention is to merge Placebase's data with Google's map sources. It's possible, but I don't see it, especially since it's not like Placebase had a monopoly on map information in the first place: they just came up with the idea of overlaying different types of data on a map. The data itself, such as area crime rates, are all public domain.
One piece of information that's relevant to this story that I haven't seen discussed: there's some word floating around that the real reason Apple has rejected (or hasn't accepted yet, depending on who you believe) the Google Voice app (and Google Latitude) is because they believe Google has too much influence on the iPhone as it stands, and Apple wants to prevent further encroachment. If Apple purchased Placebase in order to divest the Google portion of Google Maps, that meshes pretty nicely.
Companies? Why companies? What about individuals?
You need to study up.
Yes, companies ought to be restricted. No individuals ought not.
Perhaps, that it occurred to you to write that question, it might have triggered some small thought that your posts have nothing to do with what was said?
Since the whole point is to protect individual freedom and privacy from organizational (public and private) encroachment, it would make no sense at all to restrict individual rights in this manner since, when engaged in by individuals acting in their personal interests, the taking of public photographs has no significant impact on the privacy of others, at least not relative to the loss of freedom that would otherwise be incurred.
This would not affect the arts in any way. Nor would it affect news reportage since I clearly indicated there needs to be an exception for those purposes. It would however prevent Google from using identifiable images of people in their street view pictures. (And these pictures are not art, even though it is possible that someone could make art of them.)
The only thing my proposal would affect are organizational incursions on privacy.
Now, as to who needs to study up, it would seem to be you. I suggest starting with a little light reading comprehension, then, perhaps some logic and reasoning skills. And pick up a newspaper for god's sake; how could anyone not know that the Books settlement was scuttled?
One piece of information that's relevant to this story that I haven't seen discussed: there's some word floating around that the real reason Apple has rejected (or hasn't accepted yet, depending on who you believe) the Google Voice app (and Google Latitude) is because they believe Google has too much influence on the iPhone as it stands, and Apple wants to prevent further encroachment. If Apple purchased Placebase in order to divest the Google portion of Google Maps, that meshes pretty nicely.
The point has been raised here. Unfortunately, people are so intent on their AT&T hate or Google love that it's very much a minority view.
Yes, companies ought to be restricted. No individuals ought not.
Perhaps, that it occurred to you to write that question, it might have triggered some small thought that your posts have nothing to do with what was said?
Since the whole point is to protect individual freedom and privacy from organizational (public and private) encroachment, it would make no sense at all to restrict individual rights in this manner since, when engaged in by individuals acting in their personal interests, the taking of public photographs has no significant impact on the privacy of others, at least not relative to the loss of freedom that would otherwise be incurred.
This would not affect the arts in any way. Nor would it affect news reportage since I clearly indicated there needs to be an exception for those purposes. It would however prevent Google from using identifiable images of people in their street view pictures. (And these pictures are not art, even though it is possible that someone could make art of them.)
The only thing my proposal would affect are organizational incursions on privacy.
Now, as to who needs to study up, it would seem to be you. I suggest starting with a little light reading comprehension, then, perhaps some logic and reasoning skills. And pick up a newspaper for god's sake; how could anyone not know that the Books settlement was scuttled?
From the ridiculous to the absurd. You think distinctions that can't be made, should not only be made, they should be made the law. Your suggestions have no practical applications that I can determine, and massive potential for abuse and litigation.
I would suggest that if you are so concerned about your privacy that you not go out in public without wearing a ski mask. The rest of us don't feel violated if we show up in photographs.
From the ridiculous to the absurd. You think distinctions that can't be made, should not only be made, they should be made the law. Your suggestions have no practical applications that I can determine, and massive potential for abuse and litigation.
I would suggest that if you are so concerned about your privacy that you not go out in public without wearing a ski mask. The rest of us don't feel violated if we show up in photographs.
Thank you for your vaguely worded criticisms. It's unclear if you just felt the need to respond and had nothing to say, or whether these represent the full clarity of your thoughts.
However, contrary to your assertion, a significant number of people are concerned about the privacy implications of street view pictures. Since you apparently don't follow the news, you would of course not be aware of this.
Feel free to follow up when you have an actually lucid and intelligent argument and something more than personal attacks.
People can be "concerned" about all manners of things, but that does not mean we need to overthrow centuries of law and tradition just to pander to them. Your arguments are absurd because they lack in practical application or the ability to set basic parameters of what would be legal or not. You cannot for instance distinguish between "companies" and "individuals" in any sensible way. You also can't make useful distinctions between "news" and any other use -- and I notice that for you even news might not be a legitimate use of personal images. And what does the image need to show for it to be an invasion of privacy, a face? How close up? If so why? If you take a picture of a street, do you need written permission from everyone on the street to use the photo? If not, why not? These are only a few of the major issues with your concept of privacy I can think of right off the top of my head.
Finally, you are wrong to say that the Google book deal was "scuttled." The original settlement from a year ago has run into a number of problems, and some are certainly trying to kill it by raising antitrust issues among others, but as of today, it's still in place.
Insults are not an argument. So far, it seems that's mainly what you've got since you include at least one in every post.
People can be "concerned" about all manners of things, but that does not mean we need to overthrow centuries of law and tradition just to pander to them. Your arguments are absurd because they lack in practical application or the ability to set basic parameters of what would be legal or not. You cannot for instance distinguish between "companies" and "individuals" in any sensible way. You also can't make useful distinctions between "news" and any other use -- and I notice that for you even news might not be a legitimate use of personal images. And what does the image need to show for it to be an invasion of privacy, a face? How close up? If so why? If you take a picture of a street, do you need written permission from everyone on the street to use the photo? If not, why not? These are only a few of the major issues with your concept of privacy I can think of right off the top of my head.
Finally, you are wrong to say that the Google book deal was "scuttled." The original settlement from a year ago has run into a number of problems, and some are certainly trying to kill it by raising antitrust issues among others, but as of today, it's still in place.
Yes, you are correct, insults are not an argument and, so far, that's mainly what I've gotten from you.
As far as the points in your current post:
1. There are no "centuries of law and tradition" related to photography.
2. It's strange that you "notice that for you even news might not be a legitimate use of personal images," since I explicitly stated the exact opposite.
3. It's a bold declaration that, "You cannot for instance distinguish between "companies" and "individuals" in any sensible way," but, without any supporting argument, it nothing but that. I think it's quite simple to distinguish individuals: they are individuals. In most cases, it's also quite easy to distinguish companies. The are probably a few cases where one could legitimately raise the question, "Is this person acting as an individual or a company?" but this is not so overwhelmingly complex that it cannot be dealt with. For example, the law could be made not to apply to individuals not acting as agents of what is obviously a company as an individual's actions would not threaten privacy in a way that the concerted efforts of a, say, large company might. If companies were not allowed to use and store such images, this would eliminate any freelancers market that might attempt to take advantage of a loophole in the law.
4. In regard to your questions on what constitutes invasion of privacy and what permissions ought to be required a) yes, it ought to be required that every recognizable person's permission be obtained, and b) it shouldn't be hard to establish a standard for recognizability based on the amount of detail available for a given individual or even, as facial and body recognition technology advances, by defining recognizable as something based on that. Of course, companies wishing to use "street view" images, could simply avoid all liability and ambiguity, and the need for permissions by taking steps to render the individuals unrecognizable.
5. The Google Books settlement is dead in its original form and it is not "in place" in any sense of the phrase. The parties were told unequivocally that it would not be accepted as written. Whether it will ever be "in place" in any form is unknown.
Your argument basically boils down to, "Protecting privacy is a difficult undertaking, so we should not attempt it." Which isn't really an argument, it's just throwing up one's hand and saying, "We just have to let them do whatever they want."
Yes, you are correct, insults are not an argument and, so far, that's mainly what I've gotten from you.
No, you haven't had any from me. I realize some people take a disagreement as a form of personal attack, but that doesn't make it one.
And no, you did not seem prepared to exclude "news" Quoting you:
Yes, I would like the law in the U.S. changed so that commercial, non-profit and governmental organizations can't take, use or store people's images without permission, except perhaps in cases of legitimate news coverage.
Except perhaps. And "legitimate news," whatever that means. Sorry for taking you at your word. My mistake.
You have also misrepresented several things I have said, for the convenience of your argument I suppose. Not good.
This discussion has gone beyond unfruitful. I'm done with it.
No, you haven't had any from me. I realize some people take a disagreement as a form of personal attack, but that doesn't make it one.
I think I can distinguish fairly well between disagreement and personal attack, including one embedded within the other. But, yes, your aggressive, insulting attitude did provoke an utter lack of respect for you, which I freely expressed. I suggest a little honest self-appraisal on your part.