sigh

[judywatt]

I was flipping channels and I never stop on Fox News
but they were talking about the new street views on Google Maps
and they were being so dense, but I had to listen.

I wanted to hit them upside the head with the old cluebat so bad though!

They actually said something to the effect that they did not understand
why many or most "liberals" would be against illegal wire-tapping
but would not have a problem with these Google street views being available.

And yes, they actually said "illegal wire-tapping" not the legal kind.

Well, duh.

When we talk on the phone, we have a reasonable expectation
that no one else is listening in without our knowledge -
a reasonable expectation of privacy, in other words.

That's why the government should need to get a warrant
before they listen to people's private phone conversations -
they should not be able to just listen in without any evidence
that the person is doing something illegal.

But when we are walking down the street or driving around in public
we do NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So if you are doing something out in public that you should not be doing
and someone sees you or films you or takes your picture, tough luck.

And if you have pot plants growing in your backyard
and your back yard can be seen from the air - too bad.

That's my understanding of the difference anyway
and it seems like common sense to me.

Not that the so-called news people on Fox have any sense at all.

But it pains me that so many people in this country are just that stupid -
not to  mention just that idiotic when it comes to trying to make people think
that it's the "liberals" in this country who are clueless
when obviously it's twits who think that illegal wire-tapping is a great thing
who are seriously demented.

Is there any hope left for this country at all?

Comments

[jazzmo.livejournal.com]

i think the traditional (pre homeland security) laws regarding what you can photograph are a reasonable guide. for example the a photo of your dwelling from the street is legal, it’s a public view. but, a photo of you in your back yard, taken without permission is considered an invasion of privacy. it’s pretty reasonable. - that’s an oversimplification, a better overview (and the guidelines i generally follow) is here:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

i now avoid things like reservoirs . . . judging by some of the stories it’s sometimes difficult to judge what the inquisition will deem a violation of national security and send you on an extended trip to gitmo.
we need to be sensitive to any violation of rights. it is amazing how quickly they can slip away.


hope you are well . . . i know i’m a bit scarce in these parts lately.

&hearts -j

[judywatt.livejournal.com]

i agree about those being a reasonable guide - but on the other hand i think the whole backyard thing is getting to be a very gray area these days.

i personally wouldn't do something in my backyard that i would be concerned about other people seeing, if there was any way they could see it from the air or from outside the yard.

there are all kinds of satellite views of cities now that anyone can access, which show people's backyards - so i guess all those are technically invasions of privacy, but the reality is, no one is going to stop the satellites from taking pictures, so people should face reality about what they can and can't expect in teh way of privacy in their yards.

as for public places, i would be even less inclined to do anything i would be upset about about anyone in the world seeing - i heard somewhere that the average person is photographed in public 14 times a day now in various ways. the odds of a person showing up on google street views if very slim compared to that, i would think.

[zyzyly.livejournal.com]

I was reading about the google thing this morning--about a woman in oakland who was looking at her street, and was able to see her cat sitting on the sill inside her window. she wondered how long it would be before she could zoom in and see which books were on her shelf.

[judywatt.livejournal.com]

i'm sure some satellites can already do that.

anything people can see through an open window is fair game as far as i'm concerned. when you have a window open, do you really think you're still in "private"?

i've lived in a city with people all around very close to my windows all my adult life and have always felt that way anyhow - that if you don't want people looking in your windows at something you're doing, then close the drapes or blinds. or put one way film on them!

[fionnabhar.livejournal.com]

I figure it's a very different thing to take a picture and to tap a phone. Somehow, even if not literally, if they can hear what you're saying, they've gotten inside the house.

[judywatt.livejournal.com]

yes, exactly, very different things - but the fox fools were saying "what's the difference? why do those stupid liberals think illegal wiretapping is different from taking a picture of someone on a public street?" - it was crazy to listen to.

[fionnabhar.livejournal.com]

In essence: How is illegal wiretapping different from legal photography? Erm, huh. Not sure where to start with that one. ::eyeroll::

[judywatt.livejournal.com]

exactly - but most of their viwer base is so dense, i guess they think, well, if the guys on fox say it's the same thing, then of course that's just more 'evidence' that anyone who isn't a republican must be a hypocrite (when in reality it's pretty much 100% the opposite).

[ionracas.livejournal.com]

You should get Fox News blocked from your tv, I think. It's blocked on mine!

[judywatt.livejournal.com]

i could de-program it from my remote, but i doubt if i will bother. i usually just zoom on by it, but since they were talking about something i had just been doing, i stopped for a minute.