Last week was busy. But productive. This week has been busy — but almost entirely occupied by suckage. Coping with sh … stuff.
Don’t worry. This is not the sort of stuff that matters in the vast scheme of things (though one of the individual stuffs has the potential to be painful in the near term). It’s mostly just the mundane irritations that make you want to tear your hair out, wish you’d never gotten out of bed, and ask yourself how much pain you’re willing to bear tomorrow for drowning your sorrows in not one but two bloody Marys today.
But you plug on through, you know. Everybody has days and even weeks like that. They pass. So early this evening, I thought I’d made it through another one and could just relax in peace and privacy. I sat down at my table with some nice Chinese takeout, enjoying the little view from my window. I was finally starting to unrattle and feel hopeful … when down the road rolls a Google Street View car — tower on top, revolving NSA device, looking like the all-seeing eye in some corny 1950s syfi flick, scooping in everything. Images. Wifi networks. Who knows what else. In the past, they’ve scooped up passwords, bank account numbers, and all manner of other things — “accidentally,” of course. And they’re terribly sorry; that was the work of some rogue programmer; yada yada.
It was one of the next generation Google cars, all upgraded with New! Improved! snoopery. Like this one. Exactly like this one, in fact:
I live on a pretty obscure street in a pretty obscure town in a pretty obscure rural county. I knew Google Street View was a problem in civilization. Even semi-civilization. But never did I dream I’d see those agents of the corporate-surveillance state here.
So I jump up from my chair, dash out and flag the driver down.
“I don’t want my house on Street View,” I say (realizing the whole time that I’m now ending up in a Google-government database, even though they’ll obscure my face in the online version).
“Nothin’ I can do about it,” answers the unprepossessing specimen whose bulk takes up the entire space between the seat and the steering wheel. (What, no Google driverless cars yet for Google Street View?)
“Well, how do I stop the image from going online?”
“Ask Google.”
“How do I do that?”
“Oh, just go to Google and it’ll say ‘Admin.’ Then click on ‘Contact Us.'”
I dashed back into the house and immediately entered the Dread Portal of Evil, Google.com. I discover instantly that there is no “Admin/Contact Us” function. (Why am I not surprised?) It takes me about half an hour, and many dead ends and link-following circle jerk-arounds to discover that a) there is NO way to get an image removed from Street View (you can only request them to blur it) and b) you can only do that after they’ve raped your privacy by putting the unblurred image of your domicile online in the first place.
Unless you’re German. If you’re German you can opt out before the Masters of Evil exploit you. No matter how much I searched, being like a 15th generation descendent of cranky German emigres doesn’t count.
In fact, it was remarkable (though not surprising) how absolutely content-free all of Google was when it came to giving information on getting out of Street View (lots of “We really, truly, slavishly, devotedly care about your privacy” but almost no useful, or for that matter, truthful, content; some links that claimed to go to “protect your privacy” pages went instead to glossy “isn’t Google Maps Wuuuuuuderful!” pages). Google’s incessant cheerleading of itself while avoiding actual question-answering content did not improve my mood.
Only when I finally realized I was on a merry-go-round and left Google for good old StartPage (revoking scripting permissions and deleting cookies as I left, of course) did I — easily! — find information about how to limit the invasion of Street View.
The articles still said you could only request a blur and only do it after the offending material went online. Some also warned (though I suspect apocryphally) that you might be “targeted” if you wanted privacy on the usual excuse that you must have something to hide. But at least they had actual instructions and I didn’t have to hunt for half an hour.
Yeah, thanks, Google.
With all the horrors going on in the world — and just the surveillance-state horrors alone being enough to make you cry — having GoogEvil on one’s doorstep in the middle of nowhere is far from the worst thing. But I truly understand why some people just give up and give in. And why some feel so invaded they can only run and hide.
After the corporate bastards had driven off to hound and harass someone else, I looked over at my wifi router and grinned to realize I’d done a rare thing and turned it off before The Goog invaded because I’ve been having network troubles. Of course, my network is encrypted anyhow and has an obscure and boring name nobody would identify with me. So even if the router had been on, no harm. But you’ve got to wonder what else those creeping, peeping Toms are scooping up and what disgusting things they’re doing with it.
Somewhere I have a book that had a chapter on how to build an EM gun. Supposedly would scramble electronics from a distance.
That was a complete non-sequitor, of course. Not at all related to the Google car. I would never advocate destruction of someone else’s property. Never. Never, ever . . .
(do I need the tag?)
They are using it only for good… and to embarrass you later to coerce you into doing their bidding, if they find out you were not with your husband/wife, look at pony porn, wear women’s shoes, and anything else. The best defense for these evil bastards is to not be afraid of anything you’re doing. Own it and tell them to do something that’s anatomically impossible.
I find it odd that they would even offer “request blur” … or that anyone would expect them to. Nobody is violating my rights by looking at me, or even taking pictures of, me and my stuff unless they otherwise trespass to do it.
Thomas L. Knapp – But why is Google (or any otther company) on the streets in the first place, and what will they do with the information?
Why should Google, a (presumably) private company, be concerned about every damned street corner anyway? Even Google maps do not need to be so specific as to monitor every house, nor does it need to acquire its own street maps, there are plenty of street maps around this country for every state and city.
P.S: Voyeuring was once considered an illegal act. While today’s definition seems to have limited “voyeurism” to sexual connotations, it also includes spying for any reason. Who’s to say that Google doesn’t have medium-to-long-range capability to look into windows from street distance? I perceive *that* capability to violate individual rights, even though the camera may not be on private property.
As Google Maps already has its street maps in place, what else is it looking for – and why? Doesn’t it make you curious?
Our apt is on google maps but street view doesn’t go beyond the entrance. Still, it’s pretty horrible to see the bird’s eye view of my car parked in front of my apt on google maps. One of my sisters is over-the-top paranoid of computers. I don’t have the heart to tell her that her home and her car parked in the driveway are clearly visible on street view. We live in interesting times…getting even more interesting by the day.
Pat,
I’m not saying that Google is necessarily nice.
I’m saying that “privacy” as such isn’t a right.
You have a right to configure yourself and your stuff so as to make it more difficult for others to see you and your stuff, take pictures of you and your stuff, etc.
You don’t, however, have a right to not have yourself seen or your picture taken per se. That’s just an outcome you might desire, not something you’re entitled to.
If your wifi had been on, they would have logged it, encrypted or not. Then they would have put it in their databases and used it for location services (sic).
Even when encryption is turned on, they can ping the router for the BSSID aka MAC address, then put it in their database.
Setting the router to not broadcast your SSID doesn’t work either. The SSID is broadcast in cleartext even when encryption is enabled.
I learned about this from personal experience, in a location at least as remote as yours.
So you really did dodge a bullet. This time. They’ll be back.
This is why RPGs, belt-feds and fava beans (with a nice chianti) should be legal and common. The rudeness has become institutional, entirely because the rude aren’t being discouraged to a sufficient degree.
At least the GooglEvil street-view photo of my place shows only a long gravel lane that disappears into a forest, the house completely obscured, though I have no doubt that the NSA and it’s quasi-private business sycophants have scooped up much else regarding me that is properly private.
As for the ‘right to privacy’ check out the 9th Article of the Bill of Rights…
The wisest of the Founders knew that an exhaustive list of all individual rights was not practical, and hence the brief list.
I would say the right to privacy is included in the -not listed- right to be let alone, that even at least one SCOTUS justice has recognized.
Something largely lost about the nature of our rights us that the intrusions to be most feared are those carried on by *the government*…which is why the Bill of Rights was even added to the Constitution.
Sadly, most “modern” Americans appear to still place faith and trust in government, though little-if any-serious reasoning exists that supports such.
Unfortunately (?), I tend to agree with Thomas Knapp. While I wouldn’t like seeing the Google street view car coming down my street, just like I wouldn’t like to see some snoopy individual standing across the street taking pictures of my house, I don’t believe I have a right to not be (or have my property) photographed. Now, if they use infrared (or anything else) to see inside my house, that’s another issue. It’s the difference between what I have in the open and clearly visible, and what I have concealed on my property.
In fact, knowing me, if I saw the Google car coming I’d probably make sure my Time’s Up flag AND my black flag were flying. And who knows what other subversive things I might do for posterity.
“You don’t, however, have a right to not have yourself seen or your picture taken per se. That’s just an outcome you might desire, not something you’re entitled to.”
I don’t? I would say that is a part of being private – else where does privacy start or end?
I wonder why we used to ask people if we could take their picture? We assumed then that they had the right not to be seen officially/publicly (through a photo, even a private photo by a fellow tourist) if they didn’t agree to it.
Or why the media at one time could be successfully sued for taking photos of celebrities’ houses (and the naked sunbathing celebrity, of course) by flying over their property?
“The times they are ‘achangin’”, yes – but what privacy IS does not change… only the perception of what constitutes privacy _rights._ I should hope that libertarians would not change with the perception.
I believe if you and/or your property is in plain view than photography can’t be disputed. Not sure where to link to to verify that.
Maybe RobertaX would know, since she was just talking about this not long ago. -I’m sure she’ll read this 🙂
As for celebrities, those that own rights to their images (names, etc) can successfully sue based on that copyright. Us regular folk don’t usually copyright ourselves.
I don’t understand. What’s the difference whether it’s right or wrong? If you live your life by the NAP, then you’re not going to engage force against someone unless they engage it against you. You can tell invading privacy (from someone else’s property) isn’t physical force, cuz you can’t feel it and it doesn’t stop you from doing anything you wish.
Once you allow ANY non-aggressive act to be a justification for aggression, then it’s game over. If it’s one “wrong” act, then it’s another and you’re right back to the get-go…who is going to decide that, FOR YOU??
Let people do the wrong things, as long as they don’t try to stop you from doing the right things. If they’re wrong, then don’t deal with them. If enough people think they’re wrong, they’ll stop doing it…or at least show their true nature as thugs to begin with, and then be dealt with as thugs.
That’s my take anyway; I don’t fight gravity and I’m not going to fight technological reality. Plus, let’s not forget that the “invasion of privacy” knife cuts both ways.
Live. Let live.
Don’t know how long ago it’s been since the googlmobile was past here, but it must be quite a while… I looked at my place once, and they had my long circular driveway designated as a street and the whole place is pretty blurred. Maybe it wasn’t the google thing I saw, however…. I seem to remember that the view was from overhead. Is that different?
They can look. Heck, anyone who drives by here can look or take a picture. They just better be prepared to be challenged if they use my circular “street” for anything but a polite visit. Everyone here knows who I am (public persona, of course) and where I am… doesn’t bother me.
And yes, Kent… need to get a new “Time’s Up” flag. Mine got worn to tatters, and the little fragile new one hangs in the living room. I had company the other day and we both had a good laugh. The big clock above the flag was stopped dead. So far, I’ve left it that way. Too danged many clocks in this house.
“Plus, let’s not forget that the “invasion of privacy” knife cuts both ways.”
Exactly. If it’s wrong for government, it’s wrong for us (private companies and private individuals). That’s my take anyway.
ML – street view will only get our gate (w/o trespassing). But I know they shoot aerials every year or two. We used them while still shopping for a property. And the last we checked, the image was updated with our vehicles.
Somebody has an interest in knowing what all we do with our private property. Maybe just the county tax collectors… but isn’t it easier to simply call and ask the question? Allowing the homeowner a chance to not participate In the little game, rather than, essentially spying instead – as if they have a RIGHT to know?
I’m with Thomas, Kent et. al.
http://strike-the-root.com/privacy-conundrum
Not only do I think there is not a right to privacy – I don’t think rights exist at all in any real sense.
http://strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights
I don’t get worked up about it either. There are lots more important things to get worked up over. And when the revolution comes, those things will be corrected. In the meantime, if I see one of these googlemobiles coming, I will be standing on the curb with a smile on my face and the middle finger of each hand pointing skyward, heh.
I guess I’m dense, Pat. I still don’t get it. Okay, you think it’s wrong. I think it’s wrong too. Google doesn’t think it’s wrong. I get all that…what I don’t get is what you would propose to DO about it.
To me, it’s like the racism brouhaha going on around some blogs. Okay, nearly everyone thinks racism is wrong…but so what? Should we forcefully stop a restaurant owner from refusing to serve blacks or Jews or even women for that matter? On what basis???
I must be dense, cuz I still can’t figure out “no smoking in restaurant” laws. A guy’s private business and SOMEBODY ELSE is gonna tell him what he can do with it? I mean, really now.
Surely you see that it’s all the same issue, yes?
I have been getting amazingly frustrated lately with the measures I am having to go through to keep people from spying on me. It is getting to be a full time job!
I made the mistake of getting a “smart” phone about 5 months ago and while it has a lot of nice features for a small business owner like me it is a virtual NSA department in my pocket! Every app you have wants to read your contacts, calendar, bookmarks and notes! There is no way to turn it off, at least not easily so I have wasted countless hours trying to figure out how to get my damn privacy back. Throwing the phone into the swamp is now on the list of possible solutions.
The evil Google empire has also photographed my street and in the process they got a very clear photo of my son standing on the side walk (age 7) in the process. I didn’t know there was a process to request a blur, but I will be doing that now since that has bothered me for a couple of years that his photo is in their rotten databases!
Why does simple privacy have to be soooo incredibly hard to achieve?
Jim Klein – Firstly, there’s nothing I’m proposing to do about it. I don’t have control over Google (except I never use any part of it, including maps), and the issue is one of “what ought NOT to be done”, anyway, because my entire commentary was meant to be philosophical in nature.
Secondly, no, it’s not the same issue for me, because it’s a real question in my mind if Google “works for” government (much as the third-party Medicare bill collectors work for government) – and this is what runs through my head whenever I hear about Google-spying.
WHY are they doing it?
WHAT do they get out of it?
WHO are they doing it for?
WHAT will they do with the information?
I don’t believe Google itself gets any real benefit from knowing what every house looks like and what house number is on it – which incidentally can determine who owns it. So if they don’t use it themselves, why would they be collecting it?
I’m just suspicious, that’s all. As I said in my second comment, “Doesn’t it make you curious?” ( And if it doesn’t, don’t worry about it.)
Now I’ve said it every way I can, and I have to run some errands, so I’m out of here.
Let people do the wrong things, as long as they don’t try to stop you from doing the right things. If they’re wrong, then don’t deal with them. If enough people think they’re wrong, they’ll stop doing it…or at least show their true nature as thugs to begin with, and then be dealt with as thugs.
This is where the NAP starts to look like idealistic nonsense. Is it wrong for somebody to take a picture of my house? Probably not. Is it wrong for them to publish it on the web? Yeah, I’m starting to feel put upon. But if I don’t prevent the first (assuming I could) how do I prevent the second? And oh by the way, they’ve also sniffed all the info they can get from my wi-fi. I can’t think of a single reason to do that unless you plan to use it. Now you’re dipping directly into my private property for your own benefit without my consent and probably at my cost. But if I allowed the first…
It doesn’t matter, because Google is big and powerful and in bed with the government spooks, so they don’t give one solitary damn what I think about any of it. And since they haven’t empowered said government spooks to come kill me in my bed – yet – here comes a libertarian idealist to tell me there’s no harm, so no foul.
[The articles still said you could only request a blur and only do it after the offending material went online. Some also warned (though I suspect apocryphally) that you might be “targeted” if you wanted privacy on the usual excuse that you must have something to hide.]
It may be time for another class on camouflage. The essence of camouflage is to blend in, to NOT stand out. Requesting that your house be burred, when all the ones around it aren’t, simply makes it more interesting to anyone who looks down that street.
There are boatloads of “security experts” out there making the same mistake. For instance, suggesting that if there’s an active killer in your building, you should cover the door window with paper so he can’t see you inside. So he looks down the hall and sees two door windows covered. He now knows where to find more victims. (Plus, no one seems to realize that standing against the wall the door is in, hides you much more effectively.)
Of course, they’re a couple of leagues ahead of these folks:
“Calling “campus violence a reality” to prepare for, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore announced plans Thursday to spend $60,000 on the Clark Kent of teacher supplies: an innocuous-looking white board that can stop bullets.”
The 18″X20″ boards come in several pastel colors (so they won’t give students Grim Thoughts) and supposedly “provide cover for the head and torso.” (Maybe, if your torso ends about your nipples) Personally, as a CHL instructor, I can’t think how I’d use them even as a whiteboard.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-08-15/news/bs-md-bulletproof-white-boards-20130815_1_maryland-eastern-shore-whiteboards-maryland-association
“But if I don’t prevent the first (assuming I could) how do I prevent the second?”
Say it ain’t so, Joel. Are you seriously proposing that it’s alright to take certain forceful actions NOT in direct defense, because of what others “figure” to do down the road? Who shall do the figuring? Which actions? How shall you determine these matters?
I see two options to make that happen. Either every person goes willy-nilly on everyone else, forcing whatever actions he sees as “right,” by himself and in concert with whatever thugs he can manage to go along with him, or come up with some institutionalized means by which these matters will be determined, and enforced by hugely overwhelming force. Currently we engage that second option. Are you proposing that we engage the first? Do you maybe have a third plan in mind?
Idealistic or not, either folk decide that they DON’T want to make that happen, else we’re never getting out of this quagmire. What’s wrong with idealism anyway?
While I think Google went evil about the time they stopped telling others not to be, I don’t have an issue with the photo aspect of street view (the electronic data collection is another story). I’ve found street view to be helpful in finding locations that aren’t correctly labeled on maps, or to view a destination if I’ve never been somewhere. As to pictures of people, I believe it’s their policy (since the original wave of protests) to automatically blur the faces of every person photographed. Interestingly, the San Juan Islands are completely street view free, while the Gulf Islands to the North are “street viewed”. I think a community as a whole can keep Google out.
You havin’ one of those weeks too?
Must be something in the air.
How far down the NAP rabbit hole does one go before one’s response is standing impotently by with a petulant look and stamping one’s foot?
I’d not suggest harming another soul that isn’t set on harming me. Randomly hurting others is just not my kind of karma load. However, it would be ironic if the google cars started having accidents. Flat tires slow a car down something fierce. Paintballs on camera lenses probably are hard to clean off in an expedient way. Low hanging wires that catch on camera mounts would truly suck as well. Accidently getting backed into as it passes a drive way would be very inconvenient as well. Nice car, hate to see something happen to it.
Say it ain’t so, Joel. Are you seriously proposing that it’s alright to take certain forceful actions NOT in direct defense, because of what others “figure” to do down the road? Who shall do the figuring? Which actions? How shall you determine these matters?
You’re talking to the wrong guy. I’m proposing – seriously or otherwise – exactly nothing. I moved to a hollow ‘way back in the desert and learned to build my own electrical system and live on barter and forage specifically because I don’t have a plan, and don’t believe any constructive plan is possible. I think we’re screwed, as a society at least, and I’m just concentrating on living as free as I can. Me, the individual, who might be dead by nightfall. Don’t look to me for any proposals.
I sure won’t look for any from you. Ideals and ethical theories are beautiful flowers – that start to smell really bad when the first boot hits your face.
“I see two options to make that happen. Either every person goes willy-nilly on everyone else, forcing whatever actions he sees as “right,” by himself and in concert with whatever thugs he can manage to go along with him, or come up with some institutionalized means by which these matters will be determined, and enforced by hugely overwhelming force. Currently we engage that second option. Are you proposing that we engage the first?”
Actually, despite the fact I don’t think there is any “right” to privacy, living in such a society would not bother me. If going around and taking pictures of others occasionally earned a punch in the nose, I suspect that picture-taking would be kept to a low roar. And that would be fine with me even if it didn’t quite jive with some principle. Human relations are not like mathematics. They tend to be a lot more ad hoc. Without government, being polite will become a lot more popular again.
I have to disagree with Kent on infra-red.
My ability to generate heat does not in any way create an obligation on the part of others not to look at the heat I generate.
Thomas, you are right. Light is light. It still feels more like an invasion into the interior of my space, but if I don’t like it, I suppose there are things I could do to block it or scramble the data they get.
Bearing in mind, Kent, that “active opposition to data gathering” is (or can be) meaningful data in its own right. cf. further comparisons at “if you have nothing to hide…” 😉
Claire, thank you so much for posting the link to simple directions to request a blur out on Google Street View. I’m curious about how long it will take them to do it.
Just to clarify:
1) I like privacy. I think it’s important. I do my best to respect others’ desire for it.
2) As far as what the state does or should be allowed to do, I don’t think it should be allowed to do anything at all. It is by definition a giant criminal conspiracy, an overgrown street gang, and it should be suppressed and abolished.
BUT:
I’ve been thinking about the idea of a “right to privacy” quite a bit lately, and I’m not able to find it. You have the right to take steps to protect your privacy, of course. And no one has the right to aggress against you for the purpose of finding stuff out about you any more than they have the right to aggress against you for any other reason … but “finding stuff out about you” per se is not itself aggression.
Just as an example, suppose I have a secret. Hypothetically, let’s make that secret “I have a million dollars buried at location X.”
I certainly have the right not to tell anyone where my million dollars is buried.
I also certainly have the right to take a pen that I own, write on paper that I own the latitude and longitude of location X, and lock that piece of paper in a box that I own, stored in a house that I own, on land that I own.
And, of course, anyone who trespasses on the land that I own, breaks into the house that I own, forces open the box that I own, and steals the piece of paper that I own is aggressing against me with each of those actions.
They are not, however, aggressing against me BY knowing the latitude and longitude I wrote down on that piece of paper. If they come to that knowledge by means that do not themselves constitute aggression, their acquisition of that knowledge is not aggression (although stealing the million dollars would be, of course).
Everything you say is logical, moral, ethical and non-fattening, Thomas. If it were a case of you and me co-existing – or you and any reasonable person co-existing – it would work just fine. You have just outlined the unwritten, unspoken rules by which my neighbors and I conduct our affairs. Great.
Unfortunately it breaks down into philosophical claptrap when confronted with a much more powerful entity that has its own ‘golden rule’ and insists on conducting its affairs, including the ways it imposes itself on you, by the terms of that rule. You can comfort yourself that the many ways that entity has impinged itself upon you don’t quite meet your narrow definition of “aggression” right up to the moment when you can’t – but then it’ll be too late, you’ve lost everything.
I emphasize that I’m not advocating anything here; mine is a council of despair because I also live my life according to your rule, which you call NAP and I just call ‘the way I live my life.’
But let me close with a completely irrelevant anecdote, which I assure any official watchers has absolutely nothing to do with this or any other conversation: George Washington was a classicly-trained military officer, who liked to conduct battles in what he considered a ‘professional’ manner. That is, two groups of high-trained soldiers line up and exchange volleys of fire in an agreed-upon, honorable and courageous manner. Unfortunately Washington didn’t have any actual professional troops with which to do this, and so he lost battle after humiliating battle. Finally he got tired of being on the losing side of the war, at which point he threw his principles to the side, crossed a river in the dead of night, and murdered a bunch of Hessian mercenaries in their beds. He probably didn’t enjoy doing that, but that’s the point at which he started winning the war. And because he won, history speaks well of him.
There comes a time in every conflict when somebody stops counting the angels that dance on the head of a pin, spit on their hands, and raise the black flag. That’s usually the beginning of the end of the conflict, one way or another.
Thomas L. Knapp – I understand your scenario and I agree with it – _as far as it goes._
“If they come to that knowledge by means that do not themselves constitute aggression, their acquisition of that knowledge is not aggression (although stealing the million dollars would be, of course).”
The thief above is innocent of _acquiring_ his information. But Google is not. Its actions become questionable when it *deliberately* searches out and collects information about people and places it doesn’t know, that has nothing to do with its operation, and for reasons and what purpose it refuses to explain.
Who has the right to knowledge of each person’s data? As I see it, the issue with Google is an ETHICAL question that has to be resolved to the _individual’s_ satisfaction and benefit for *any* degree of privacy to be claimed. Without this resolution, government and corporations – any and all groups/institutions at every level – can demand what they want (and they are trying to do just that). I don’t think we have the ‘right’ to say “I want to be left alone”, if we believe they have the ‘right’ to spy and collect data as long as it isn’t physically forced from us.
(It is a part of the age-old conflict between the individual and society – who owns you? And what is “you”, if not ALL of you – body, mind, soul, productive work – and concomitant INFORMATION about your body, mind, soul, and productive work?)
I will agree to disagree here. I’m not sure there’s any resolution to our way of thinking, we’re just going ‘round and ‘round.
Pat,
I don’t think we have to agree to disagree. I think we’re on the same side.
Like Claire says in a follow-up post, a creep who’s doing a bunch of creepy stuff that’s within his rights to do is still a creep.
I’m mostly just thinking out loud on this lately, trying to figure out how reconcile “information wants to be free” with “as long as Entity X doesn’t have MY information.”
“Information wants to be free” is anthropomorphizing information. 🙂 Though that is the common saying, it might be more precise to say, “People should have easy access to information.” It might even be true that way.
[The thief above is innocent of _acquiring_ his information. But Google is not. Its actions become questionable when it *deliberately* searches out and collects information about people and places it doesn’t know, that has nothing to do with its operation, and for reasons and what purpose it refuses to explain. ]
Well, as long as Google sticks to its contractual arrangements with people, I don’t see how this could be stopped. Even if it is creepy. Maybe call up the president of Google and threaten to bust his chops? 🙂
Thomas L. Knapp – I’m (mostly) just thinking out loud, too. But I disagree with many re: where “libertarian” thought-process takes us.
I just don’t think we should complain about their spying or collecting data on us if we don’t consider it an invasion of privacy. And if we do consider it an invasion of privacy, how can we claim to have no privacy rights? That entire argument is inconsistent to me.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: “Where does privacy start and end?” (No one is answering that question.)
It’s said that *aggression* starts with somebody’s fist in your face. I say that *privacy* starts with your claim to be yourself, an individual; and as an individual, you have the *right* to insist that no one insinuate himself into your life _or grab any part of it_, for any reason, without your knowledge or permission.
Isn’t that what being an individual is all about? Or have I missed something over the past 50 years in libertarian writing?
~~~
Re: the oft-repeated, “What can we do about it?”, I’ve answered that question. There’s nothing we can do about it _unless it comes on our property or directly attacks us._
But I consider “coming on our property” to include 1) taking pictures of me and mine without my knowledge or permission; and 2) grabbing one’s personal information that doesn’t relate to the grabber’s business or my relationship with him (and especially if that information is used against me in some way legally at a later date.)
This is a deliberately-invasive act like trespassing to “case the joint”, and can even be compared to a police sting. The technological advances of today have made it an issue that government and corporations, working hand-in-hand, have taken advantage of before we, the public, can see the danger and fight it. These advances are being used *AS A MEANS* to invade us, while at the same time saying, “No, we are only doing our job as a private company.”
BullS**t! They are the technological Gestapo: Google and Microsoft, loan companies and banks, government alphabet soup gangs are all invading our space daily. They ARE coming onto our property, they ARE directly invading us. They are poking their noses into our business, and that is an uncalled-for personal invasion.
Further, they are using our own mantra – No Aggression – against us. As long as we keep telling ourselves we can only fight direct hand-to-hand battles, we will lose. We should learn to recognize aggression where it exists, not just in a fist but in far subtler methods employed to beat the individual into compliance.
(Sorry this is so long.)
[I just don’t think we should complain about their spying or collecting data on us if we don’t consider it an invasion of privacy. And if we do consider it an invasion of privacy, how can we claim to have no privacy rights? That entire argument is inconsistent to me.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: “Where does privacy start and end?” (No one is answering that question.)]
This is why I have abandoned the language of rights. It just confuses the discussion.
First, if you have signed a contract with google, or effectively have signed one (e.g. “By using our Services, you are agreeing to these terms,” right there on their policy page), you don’t have much of a leg to stand on, morally or legally, as long as they do not violate this agreement. Those who complain should tell us where the agreement has been violated, and then we can go on from there.
Second, why bring up “rights”? Rights are a fantasy. Use simple, direct language: “I don’t like them gathering information on me and passing it on to my enemies (the government).” The remedy is clear – stop using their services. Yeah, that is difficult, but not impossible. For example I no longer use their search engine, using startpage.com instead. I’m still wondering why backwoodshome.com uses some google services (googleuserservices.com and google-analytics.com). Are there no alternatives to these? What do they provide for backwoodshome.com? Maybe we should clean up our own back yard first before complaining…
As to Microsoft, why use them? When Linux and BSD and Apple are available? The security recommendation to get rid of Microsoft has been out there forever; why would people ignore such warnings if privacy was their concern? Again, anybody still on Microsoft has no leg to stand on, morally or legally.
I honestly have no problem with google maps or street view. On a public street, one has no expectations of privacy, take as many photos as you want.
My own little bug-out location is so remote that google street view hasn’t reached it… Yep, google street view has photos of cities in Iraq and Afghanistan, but my little neck of the woods on the side of a mountain remains unknown.