Slashdot Log In
Google Caught On Private Property
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Jul 26, 2008 04:38 PM
from the dude-that-is-so-not-cool dept.
from the dude-that-is-so-not-cool dept.
nathan halverson writes "Google recently launched Street View coverage in Sonoma and Mendocino counties — big pot growing counties. And while they hardly covered the area's biggest city, Santa Rosa, they canvassed many of the rural areas known for growing pot. I found at least one instance where they drove well onto private property, past a gate and no trespassing sign, and took photographs. I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking, but someone is likely to find some pot plants captured on Street View. That could cause big problems for residents. Because while growing a substantial amount of pot is legal in Mendocino and Sonoma County under state law, it's highly illegal under federal law and would be grounds for a federal raid."
Related Stories
Firehose:Google caught on private property by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Technology: Google Says Complete Privacy Does Not Exist 543 comments
schliz writes "In a submission to court, Google is arguing that in the modern world there can be no expectation of privacy. Google is being sued by a Pennsylvania couple after their home appeared on Google's Street View pages. The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property." Here is our previous story about Google Street View privacy issues.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't snitch.. online.
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't even joke about "no snitching". It's a serious problem because people do not come forward to report crimes or give information. People are constantly exposed to this message through clothes (many varieties of 'no snitchin' shirts, hats) and primarily through rap.
It may seem funny but people really live in environments where the fear of retaliation for speaking with the police is so strong that they say nothing. The whole "no snitchin'" thing bolsters that message.
There is nothing funny about unsolved crime and criminals who go free because people are intimidated into not talking.
Parent
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So your argument is that people shouldn't drive while high. That seems reasonable, just as people can't drive while drunk. As far as I can tell your argument makes the point that it should be controlled like alcohol, not illegal.
Parent
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm as against drunk driving as anyone, and am even more against driving while high, but I am also highly against restrictions on these things while not driving. You should be free to get high on your own time as much as you want, just so long as you don't try to operate deadly machinery while doing it.
Banning an entire class of substances just because you don't want people driving while under their influence is ridiculous.
Parent
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Funny)
oh and do you know what industry uses the most amount of ammonium nitrate? Hint it isn't demolitions. Heck with the right air mixture flour can be explosive. you know the stuff they make bread and cakes from.
oh and I would hardly call a field of weed gardening, farming is far more accurate.
what everyone who wants to legalise weed seem to forget in their weed induced stumblings is that it like alcohol affects everyone differently, and I don't want people driving drunk let alone so smoked out they forget which is the gas and which is the brake as they laugh and hit the car in front of them. Ever watch someone go chill man as they stumble across the floor while high on weed? now imagine someone driving that way. Alcohol should also be controlled tighter too, but controlling that is far harder than controlling weed.
Don't post high, dude.
Parent
URL? (Score:5, Funny)
Where is the Google link then?
I need "directions to this location".
Small Detail: Growing is Still a State Crime (Score:5, Informative)
Most pot growing is still illegal under California Law [canorml.org]. Under Prop 215 [wikipedia.org] you can grow pot for personal use provided your doctor has prescribed it.
Re:Small Detail: Growing is Still a State Crime (Score:5, Informative)
Of course the federales can do a bust, but prosecuting people for trivial offenses which don't cross state lines is normally done on the State's dime; and I doubt the people of Wyoming want their taxes raised to keep all those California pot-heads in federal prisons if they manage to get a conviction.
People in Wyoming mostly have common sense. People in Washington do not [stopthedrugwar.org].
Parent
Re:Small Detail: Growing is Still a State Crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse a non American dude here, but if growing pot within the boundaries you describe is legal according to the state, how can it be illegal nationally?
Which one of the systems has precedence?
Excellent question. I believe the founding fathers of our country intended state law to take precedence.
Yeah, feel free to try and explain that to the guys in full swat team gear and automatic rifles.
I fully agree with you, mind you, but, the powers that be have decided they have the power to decide this, and, well, they have bigass firearms behind them.
Parent
Its not google you dolt (Score:5, Informative)
Legalize it already (Score:5, Insightful)
A: Drug lords can make massive amounts of cash while engaging in very shady practices
B: People's lives are ruined because they were caught setting small amounts of plants on fire(meanwhile idiots light up massive amounts of the legal plants in giant bonfires are a risk to themselves and others and yet go unpunished)
C: Massive amounts of tax payer money are wasted chasing the former, and if they find them, even more is wasted putting them in a prison where they are no longer productive to society and branding them with a record that will cost them even more(and probably cause them to go from productive to an even BIGGER burden on society)
Legalize it for use in homes, but make sure if someone is stupid enough to do it and go out driving that you bust their asses.
Notice that Google doesn't cover Washington (Score:5, Interesting)
Google StreetView now has all of the major U.S. cities covered. Except the Washington, D.C. area. Of the top forty metropolitan areas in the US, Google has all of them covered except #8, the Washington D.C. area, and #20, the Baltimore area. There's no StreetView data for a 75-mile radius around Washington. They've covered Wilmington, DE and Richmond, VA, both about 100 miles from Washington, but that's as close as they get.
They're working on rural areas of California. They've worked down to Knoxville, TN, Greenville, NC, and Boise, IH. So it can't be accidental that they've avoided Washington.
One wonders why.
Re:Notice that Google doesn't cover Washington (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
They passed 6 no trespassing signs... (Score:5, Informative)
... to get to our property.
Re:The residents thank you, sir (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a clue: not all laws are just, and not all laws should be obeyed.
Parent
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.
At least in the US, that is 100% wrong. Courts are for interpreting laws and dealing with conflicts, real and apparent, between various layers of the law.
Dealing with unjust laws is explicitly not part of their remit. A relevant example to this case: someone growing or selling medical marijuana, even when they have a municipal license and are paying all their taxes, may not mention the medical nature of their selling in federal court, because the law in question doesn't excuse that.
Dealing with unjust laws is the responsibility of the citizenry. And, supposedly, the politicians, but I think they've forgotten.
Parent
Re:In other words (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is an interesting idea: Don't break the fucking law.
I hope you intended that to apply to Google as well - trespassing is breaking the law.
It might take a shitload of well deserved invasion of privacy lawsuits against Google for them to get their act together and do the Streetview correctly. Whoever planned the picture taking for Streetview obviously had little experience with the laws relating to photography - wonder if anyone there ever heard of a "model release".
Parent
Re:In other words (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally I'm not a cannabis user or grower. I don't like the high and make my money in other ways. I'm for legalization because it's the right thing to do, not because there's anything in it for me personally.
Parent
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people don't agree with having penalties for thoughtcrime. Some just think they can get away with it. I realize that laws are not "made to be broken", but those who defended the status quo during Jim Crow or Prohibition became history's losers, and rightly so. Plus, consider again the loss of privacy. I trust the system more than I trust some self-appointed vigilantes with internet access. But if this makes mainstream news, they will be judged and sentenced long before any cop arrives at their place.
Funny thing about the law: it applies to companies like Google just as well. Their quest to index the universe is at odds with people's right to privacy. Too bad. Find a business model that doesn't involve breaking the law. This is not the first of these stories. They lose the benefit of the doubt. I am left with one conclusion: that there's an unspoken rule for these drivers: "ignore those gates and signs, or we'll replace you with someone who will."
Parent
Re:In other words (Score:5, Funny)
Don't break the fucking law.
Look dickweed, I fuck when I want, whether or not there is a law.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway, would have, not would of. Sheesh.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
You said it ... those kind've speling mistakes make me loose my temper.
Parent
Re:Legal locally but illegal on the federal level (Score:5, Informative)
I am by no means well versed in this area of law. However, it makes no sense to me whatsoever how under state law, the growing of pot is legal, but illegal under federal law. How can a state tell you that you are allowed to violate a federal law? And, what happens if the feds do raid? Would you be able to make an arguable case in court on the premise that the state in which you reside said it is ok to violate the federal law?
It works like this, if the state has no law against it and policies in place, the majority of law enforcement (state troopers, county sheriffs, city police, etc.) don't bother you. The only way to get "busted" is if the FBI, BATF, etc. discovers what you are doing and goes after you. There is little the state can do to prevent that, but it makes it highly unlikely you will be arrested because the feds don't have the manpower.
In at least one instance California was distributing medical marijuana through the state police, since state police are immune to federal prosecution for possession of illicit drugs in the course of their duty. Basically, it is just a way for a state to be as uncooperative with federal laws they disagree with.
Parent