Google Caught On Private Property 668
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."
Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't snitch.. online.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He didn't "snitch", he insinuated.
But he did it so subtly and well most people think he found, or at least that there really is, footage of marijuana on StreetView. Actually he's provided no evidence at all.
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.
Snitch! (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone is doing something that isn't right, and you don't stop them, you're basically helping them do their incorrect business.
Not that pot is 'evil', but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone is doing something that isn't right, and you don't stop them, you're basically helping them do their incorrect business.
Not that pot is 'evil', but ... all it takes for evil to win, is that good men do nothing.
That would depend on the interpretation of good and bad.
If people want to take drugs, and ruin their lives,it's their choice , not mine.
People should take responsibility for their own actions , and not expect society to always clean it up for them.
I'm not saying there's no problem , but making everyone feel guilty for nothing won't help either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah yes, that lovely old fallacy, everyone that smokes pot ruins their life in doing so.
Just like everyone that ever had a beer is a hopeless drunk and lives in a gutter.
Re:Snitch! (Score:4, Interesting)
Argument (1) is an evidence based approach (2) is a philosophy based approach. So in making a point, I might use the worst case scenario: they will ruin their lives/die. It doesn't make any difference to argument (2) which seems to me, then, to be a stronger point for a free society. When you have the leaders of your country, presidents and legislators, who have taken drugs and still reached (depending on your POV) the top of society it is also time to acknowledge point (1).
"Don't take that stuff son, it'll ruin your life. Why, I know a guy who started smoking that, and he became president of the US! Just say no."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh I agree, I just didn't like the guy's blanket "Drugs will automatically ruin your life" thing.
I also don't like the term "drugs" because it covers an enormous range of effects, harms, dependencies and substances legal and illegal.
Point 2 is a stronger point, but point 1 is pretty strong too, especially when (as you say) so many politicians have admitted to use of pot, or stronger substances.
These admissions are usually followed by "in my youth, it was a mistake, no we're not going to legalise it", which
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet if they legalised "weak" strains of cannabis then the problem of the strong strains would disappear overnight.
Regulation > prohibition.
Re:Snitch! (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the other argument against drug bans: that banning the drug creates more harm than it removes. A major harm caused by banning drugs is that producing those drugs becomes a criminal activity, and so naturally criminals take over that activity. Another problem is that banning drugs causes the price of the drugs to go up dramatically. This makes drug users spend more of their money on drugs. The money goes to the criminals producing, importing, and selling the drugs. These criminals don't pay tax on their income, and use their money to protect their business, by corrupting law makers and law enforcers.
This is a major harm to society caused by banning drugs. Criminals can now get lots of money without much effort, or much risk. If the drugs were legal, the price would be much lower, and the money would go to legitimate businesses. Think about that, by banning drugs, we make criminals rich and powerful.
Re: (Score:3)
I also think weed should be regulated. If they can find a medical use for it, okay, but they haven't.
I thought people with certain painful conditions like arthritis or whatever were prescribed it?
Just had a google and http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/patients-use.htm [cannabis-med.org] shows quite a few medical uses..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you get those last two mixed up in order? I think heroin is MUCH worse than cocaine, at least from an addiction point.
Most people I know never got hooked on cocaine, but, I think most people that try heroin once or twice have a VERY good chance on getting hooked.
Out of all the people I've known that did coke...only two I ever met d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If people want to take drugs, and ruin their lives,it's their choice , not mine.
That is an extremely puritan, and (far worse) uneducated opinion that you're voicing there. I mean, what's next? People who enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, oh noes, they're evil! And, *gasp* they might even have sex later that night!
I know McGruff has done serious damage to the mindsets of the younger generations, but crap, something's got to give.
I'm not defending heroin, cocaine, or crack; but if you look at the effects of marijuana versus alcohol, they pretty much even out. And plenty of people manage
Re:Snitch! (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't always...but then the government does it for them.
rj
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pot is only evil by association, given that dirty hippies grow it, and dirty hippies are evil.
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing funny about unsolved crime and criminals who go free because people are intimidated into not talking.
There is when the "crime" in question is essentially gardening.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Yes, people should not drive while attending collage. An ex-girlfriend's roommate did once. She'd stay awake the night before studying for an exam, wound up falling asleep at the wheel and rolled her SUV, killing her boyfriend. (This IS a true). So, following your logic, college, or at least exams, should be illegal. That being said, I am for pro-legalization, but allowing people to drive while high should not be legal.
2. First, I loathe tobacco. However, you're a moron. "These days"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll accept your final sentence - no one is force to patronize a private business. However, I'm astounded that the post has been rated insightful. As I can't mod it down myself, I'll highlight some of the major errors in the argument for others:
You could, however, eat in the non-smoking section.
You do realise that the smoking and non-smoking sections are often in the same room? Smoke circulates throughout the room and often ignores signs telling it to stay in a certain area.
No one forces you to work or spend time there. Let the market win on that one...if a place can make more money or just chooses to be smoke free, that should be their choice.
Your argument is that large and small businesses should be allowed to do what they
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:4, Informative)
Is that person seriously worried about a "contact high" effect? Does anyone believe that you can ingest enough cannibas from other people smoking it to impair your driving.
Jesus, don't people learn anything in high school these days?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything it's more the case that "kids (actually teenagers) will try it more because it's illegal". The other factor is that legal recreational drugs tend to be available in different forms and strengths compared with illegal ones.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain pot doesn't give you "flashbacks"
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...Banning an entire class of substances....
is only the beginning. I can see controlling people's behavior, that what they do may be needed, but NOT what they happen to possess. It is so easy to surreptitiously plant some illegal material or object in order to frame someone. People should be held responsible for what they DO, not what they merely HAVE. If some driver has an open bottle of booze in a car they could be tested for alcohol, but not punished for merely having the bottle.
If someone has some arbit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm starting to think that Godwin's law should be updated to include child porn.
No, viewing pictures does not create demand. Searching for more pictures might, but only paying for them actually directly motivates anyone to produce them.
I fail to see how someone viewing pictures increases the likelihood of someone else doing o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Funny)
"Tradition" is just "what people have done for a while". In some fraternity houses, drinking cheap alcohol until you are unconscious is a "tradition", and stopping at a bar after work and drinking until you are so drunk and angry at your miserable lot in life that you go home and beat up your wife and kid is a "tradition".
I've seldom seen anyone smoke so much pot that they got into a fight.
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.
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:4, Funny)
now imagine someone driving that way.
What I have trouble imagining is that you have a high school education. You start several sentences without proper punctuation, you don't know when to use a comma, and you have at least two sentences that don't have a proper antecedent. I don't think someone as barely literate as yourself should comment on what might constitute appropriate legislation. Best for everyone would be for you to return to your burger flipping job and leave thinking for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. I am Dutch and many of my friends smok(ed) cannabis. I have seen them drive (and traveled as a passenger with them) and I'd rather be in a car with someone who had just smoked a big joint then with anyone who drank just one beer. When high, one tends to drive more careful than normal. Alcohol makes one forget their responsibilities, cannabis does not. Probably the people you saw (or claim to have seen) were what we call 'stronken' which, in English
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, from the documentaries I've seen recently...it was made illegal mor
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Informative)
The British Government's scientists found that cannabis was less dangerous than nicotine or alcohol. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm#drugs [bbc.co.uk]
Still, driving under the influence of any drug is unsafe
(They ignored the results, and reversed an earlier decision to make cannabis "less illegal", but that's irrelevant to the science.)
I would gladly swap drunks on streets for stoned people. Stoned people, generally, talk a lot, or grin. Drunk people shout and fight.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that pot is not a narcotic.
Why don't you all just get it over with and say "drugs as in drugs 'r' bad, mmkay?"?
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you ever think that maybe it's the irresponsible and unreliable people who are the ones who smoke pot all day?
I'd have thought that with all the slashdot readers who are techies, I wouldn't see so many comments that show a poor grasp of the difference between cause and effect.
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Correlation != Causation.
I smoke pot REGULARLY as a medical user. I don't forget a damned thing except maybe where the hell I put my keys. I'm on time for all appointments (And on-time is 30 minutes early for me,) and I never slack off until ALL WORK IS DONE.
But then again, I'm the sort of person that's in so much pain I CAN'T function without the pot (and I'm 100% opiate intolerant, NSAIDs do not work, and cocaine-based drugs make my heart race so hard I collapse.)
Where'd that anecdotal evidence of yours go, now?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, weed should be legal for the rope and not because pot-heads want it. Very insightful.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fine by me. Go dig for plutonium. Have fun. And when you're done, I've got a bridge in Brookland to sell you.
(Here's a hint for the chemistry disabled. Plutonium is not a naturally occurring element, at least in any reasonable amount).
And on a more serious note, I wouldn't care at all if you started digging up Uranium. Now, if you try to use that to harm me, or try to enrich it, then I have a problem, but Uranium isn't a big deal on its own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That "No Snitchin" movement is particularly stupid, because it's led by rappers and such who have no idea why one shouldn't snitch. Obviously it started as a way to "protect" local organised crime you're involved with and to rely on "street justice" rather than the traditional justice system, yet this silly movement made it into a golden rule that applies to absolutely everything without wondering why.
Because of such a silly rule, in cases when the witnesses have nothing to fear and that "street justice" w
Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Let me tell you a story about "snitching", why I will never do it again and why it has zero to do with who I'm snitching on. It's the damn cops themselves! I had a friend of mine who I thought was going to be raped, I called it in, the cop showed up to take my report. I knew where they were going, or had only one idea where they would go but didn't have any address or street names - only how to get there. I was on my bike, so I joined him in his cruiser and proceeded to guide him to where I thought it was. Once we got there, it was in the back woods, I was very surprised to see three other cruisers already there, cops out, lights twirling and weapons drawn - someone else had apparently called something in obviously. In the end nothing happened, he took me back to my bike - but before letting me go, ran me through the system looking for warrants or anything to nail me on! I didn't have anything at the time, and wouldn't be that stupid to try and run from the radio - regardless, I will never, ever "snitch" again.
If you want people to feel safe about snitching, then the cops have to go back to the "protect and serve" not "arrest anyone they can, and LOOK for shit". You don't give an 83 year old lady a speeding ticket for going 2 miles an hour over the speed limit, caught in a speed trap. You don't be a hard ass and intimidate people your supposedly "serving".
If you want people to "snitch" then win the damn trust back! The cops are worse in my book than any thug, the thug will kick your ass, threaten you and move on - the cops will "find something", throw your ass in jail where you will kindly get raped for the rest of your term, or in the very least you'll be fighting for your life a hell of a lot more than you would in the real world.
And for the record, I'm your average blond haired, blue eyed, caucasian dip shit that lives in the nicer areas, or tries to at least - I'm far from any gangbanger and don't dress like it. Although I'm quickly catching on to why minorities complain about this crap.
URL? (Score:5, Funny)
Where is the Google link then?
I need "directions to this location".
Re:URL? (Score:4, Funny)
thc.google.com
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The residents thank you, sir (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The residents thank you, sir (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
New Slashdot mod option: Fed.
Re:The residents thank you, sir (Score:4, Funny)
how true!
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:4, Interesting)
Most pot growing is still illegal under California Law. Under Prop 215 you can grow pot for personal use provided your doctor has prescribed it.
You can also grow it as a designated agent for someone who has a doctor's recommendation under California Law. The main catch is you can't transport it to them.
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. The feds just 'arrest' property, since when accused of a crime property in the USA is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Some individuals have put in a claim that their property is innocent of a crime and have had their pot plants returned, but this is rare -- and much more expensive than just growing some more, it is a weed after all.
It's not just the federales harassing the citizens of California. Some local authorities do it too. They are allowed to enforce the silliest of federal laws in addition to the local laws. But the brunt of the federal law kicks in at cultivation of 100 plants or possession of 100 kilos. Many growers in California consequently stay at 99 plants or less. You can get jail time for smaller amounts, but it's generally a misdemeanor and you also need to find a jury that will actually convict. Their main goal is to harass their victims and 'arrest' any cash they find lying around.
As to the topic at hand, you need to be a real idiot to install a road on your property without a closed gate at the entrance and not expect cars to accidentally drive down the road.
PS I find no use for pot in my own life but cringe at the waste of money, lives, and freedom the 'war' has cost us.
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].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the books, national. One of these cases went to the Supreme Court, and they backed the DEA.
Thing is, the feds have no real way of knowing about most of the grow operations without the cooperation of local law enforcement. Or, apparently, Google.
Re:Small Detail: Growing is Still a State Crime (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. The California Constitution, Article III Section 3.5 (c) states: "An
administrative agency...has no power. . . (c) To declare a statute
unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that
federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such
statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the
enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal
regulations."
3. The California Constitution, Article V Section 13 stat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The supreme court has held that the interstate commerce clause gives congress the authority to regulate wheat grown on a farm for consumption on the same farm. That case would probably be decided differently if brought to the court now, but it's still the law of
So your point is... (Score:5, Interesting)
BS, and BS to Wickard v Filburn, too. We are not a nation of law, and haven't been for many years. It's all a disingenuous, self-serving scam to keep the proles in their place.
(CRAWFORD, TX) Bush clears brush, grows weed (Score:4, Funny)
Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced he will not enforce any marijuana laws broken by officials in the Bush administration, citing executive privilege.
Legal locally but illegal on the federal level (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Hoping someone can shed a little more light on this.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of enforcement. The local gendarmes are more plentiful than the feds. If the feds bust you, they're a higher court and precedent says you're screwed if you're growing pot in CA.
Whether you argue for or against pot consumption is moot. If feds want to use google earth, it'll be tough to reason with a judge to get a warrant and bust someone, as google was acting illegally when they took the pics.
At all levels, LEOs know where drugs are grown in CA. It's up to them to decide whether it's worth dr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
In a word, no. A number of people licensed to grow or sell medical marijuana by their local cities have been sent to federal prison, and I believe they couldn't mention their local-government blessing in federal court.
There's a good article [latimes.com] in today's LA Times. A guy who ran a dispensary is up on Federal charges, and at the top of the article is a photo of him cutting the ribbon with the whole city council standing with him. Boing Boing has some related coverage about the high school student with advanced c [boingboing.net]
Its not google you dolt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its not google you dolt (Score:4, Insightful)
Clarification of legal situation? (Score:2)
that the legal status of doing something depends on who looks at the matter.
I know there are differing laws about some things e.g. in Germany on state and federal level,
but there are exact procedures on how to resolve such a conflict of law, and by result, in a single
place, something is either legal or not.
Completely independent from whether a matter is handled by state or federal police.
I would have suspected the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are two sovereigns in play here, the regional California state government and the United States federal government.
California, the regional government, has indicated that it doesn't violate California law, in some circumstances, to grow marijuana. California based law enforcement is under compulsion by state law to go after people growing marijuana in these circumstances.
At the same time, however, there is a federal law that says that growing marijuana is illegal under all (I think, maybe excepting r
Re:Clarification of legal situation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Federal law on this point preempts (trumps, overrules) state law on this point, thanks to the federal constitution.
What part of "enumerated powers" as well as the 10th amendment (sort of a "we really meant it!" amendment) do you not understand? Why not actually try reading your Constitution. Powers are only assigned to the Federal government by enumeration in the Constitution (expressly), otherwise powers are held by the States or the People. See the 10th.
C//
Re: (Score:3)
Dear neighbour, could you please tell me which laws from Brussels take precedence over national laws and which do not? The balance between state and federal government in the US might be unhealthy, but I'm not very reassured the EU is turning out to be any better.
Your pot smoking neighbour from the west coast (Holland, not California).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are correct but there is a difference here between something being illegal and criminalized. If our ferderal government makes growning pot a crime, its a crime everywhere include the whole of CA. Now CA can decide its not going to enforce that federal law, or enforce it only conditionally, provided the codifiy the conditions they will enforce under ( still have to have due porcess and equal protection ).
So you can be growning pot on your front porch in parts of CA and if a local cop rolls down the str
Yea and? (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, if you haven't figured out that Google and the governments of the countries they are in work closely together on everything from data mining to monitoring your activities by now... well you're just a fool.
That's what we pay the CIA and DHS security goon squads to do, spy on everyone (but you of course, you're special and they aren't watching you).
Re:Gub'ment agencies (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
If that article was to be believed and that Google agreed with that request, then Government "secrets" which are apparently out in the public
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ha. What a silly thing for the government to say. I know someone (living in DC) that's done a significant amount of contracting work for which he needed a security clearance from the Federal Government. He said that after all the procedures he went through to get the clearance he's become accustomed and desensitized to having machine guns pointed at his face. From the stories I've heard from him, if you're going to a location where you could potentially see something sensitive, that's the way you're tre
Plastic pot plants... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just replace them with plastic pot plants - our local supermarket cafe actually has plastic pot plants that have 5 point leaves with the central point the longest and the side points the sdhortest.
Violation of 10th Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't the 10th Amendment prohibit such federal laws?
They passed 6 no trespassing signs... (Score:5, Informative)
... to get to our property.
Absurdium (Score:3, Informative)
OK, first of all no medical MJ patient in their right mind would grow OUTDOORS. The cops are not the only problem--there is also theft and even armed robbery.
Second, Google needs to be extra careful in rural areas. There are many places where the roads are privately owned but may not be clearly marked (there is one in my home neighborhood in unincorporated Sonoma county, in fact). The county knows about these full well (they won't pave them, for example). Google needs to check the land ownership records before they publish pictures... but this has nothing to do with pot growing, nor did TFA...
Do No Evil? Seems they do a lot of evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Actions speak louder than words and this action scream out loud.
What part of DO NOT TRESPASS do these people not get?
They get it all right, but they don't care. For them, it's enough to say "call us and complain" or "we'll remove it if you sue us". Well, what about the giant yellow and black ROBOTS.TXT in front of my property? Why isn't that good enough?
They want to be trusted with your email, your photos, your files, the details of your life. They want to intrude and invade. They will tell you that you should trust them and let them in because they do no evil. Google is god, they would never do bad and they just store data, they never use it.
Well fuck you Google, you are evil because you don't give a shit about the harm you may do, only that you can get what you want. Just another rich greedy asshole out to make a dime at someone else's expense. Learn some respect for privacy, I know it may be hard since you as a company hate that word.
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a clue: not all laws are just, and not all laws should be obeyed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The good thing about total surveillance is that it will make the unjust laws stand out and expose them to the public.
The bad thing is of course is that many people will get into trouble before the laws are adjusted back to fit reality.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its just a shame that nobody has ever been arrested for growing pot, thus we've never had a chance to challenge that law.
Re: (Score:2)
Or when breaking the law, don't do it in plain sight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:In other words (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fail.
It is not fruit of a poisonous tree because the police neither asked nor encouraged google to take the pictures.
If the evidence of one crime is found in the commission of a second crime, that evidence can still be used because the evidence would be evidence of both the second and first crimes.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least work to get the law repealed. Selective, arbitrary enforcement merely creates contempt for all laws.
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."
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.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway, would have, not would of. Sheesh.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
You said it ... those kind've speling mistakes make me loose my temper.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now that's being loose with Os.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes! And does so quite well :)
Many states spend huge sums, often in the millions of dollars, to seek out and eradicate wild, naturally growing cannabis. And they still can't beat cannabis - much of it keeps growing back no matter what they do.
What's so sad, is that many governments spend lots of money in their quest to eradicate cannabis, which directly kills no one ... and yet they spend little to nothing to eradicate truly deadly weeds, such as Jimson Weed (Datura stramonium), which directly kills numerou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)