6 ms·

Does it? I didn't give written approval for the Google StreetView car to photography the front of my house. If I was to create a database of photographs of buil

by grkvlt 10y ago

Does it? I didn't give written approval for the Google StreetView car to photography the front of my house. If I was to create a database of photographs of buildings, taken from a public location and indexed by street address, I don't believe I have to get permission, and the product could be released publicly, or even sold to estate agents or similar. I used to have to give the phone company written (or st least explicit) notice to opt out of their public index of numbers and names. So, it seems most things operate the same way as SSIDs, public information requires an opt-out to be available, not an opt-in.

kuschku 10y ago
Well, here Google had to run a media campaign and had to wait for people explicitly say yes or no to streetview, and the phone books have been opt-in for decades, since the market was liberalized and the Postmonopol ended with it being split into Deutsche Post DHL, Postbank and T-Online. At least for Germany Google could have stayed within of this single law. I don’t care if Google literally would enslave and rape US-Americans – they chose to vote for politics that allows that – but Google should at least stay within of German law in Germany.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  It was never illegal. It has always been legal. Debates were around asking if people could change the law to make it retroactively illegal. Also: down voted again for emotionally manipulative and outright vile rhetoric. If Hacker News is a place for free speech and open debate, you casually turning every conversation you can to molestation, rape and violence is a violation of the social contract we all have to keep the tone civil, and hurts the goal of honest debate.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    But that's literally what I don't care about? Google cando whatever they want, no matter how crazy it would be, in the US, as long as they follow the laws Ivoted for where I live. I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I literally wouldn't care if they used Blackwater's army to level entire cities if the people chose to allow this by voting. It's literally the worst case scenario, and hundred times more, and I wouldn't care. But I do care about them following the laws I voted for where I live. And yes, it was already illegal. German law has a principle where an action being done once or twice is very different from the same being automatically done thousands of times. That includes collecting SSIDs, likely.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      > And yes, it was already illegal. Oh really. Fascinating. That seems to line up with the history. > I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I would like to make it clear I specifically don't care what your justification is for invoking that specter. It's at best utterly irrelevant and unneeded. At worst, it's threatening. Find a better way to express this and you won't get downvotes. It's on you to communicate yourself in a socially acceptable way. If you don't care about that, then accept the downvotes as salty fluid that waters the tree of your liberty.
  - nerdponx 10y ago
    Did you just see the word "rape" and downvote blindly?
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      I read the whole thing, understood it, dismissed it. Vague or explicit allusions to sexual violence are about as funny/helpful/fair/meaningful/good/logical/whatever as vague allusions to racial violence. So yeah, free downvote for mentioning it outside of a discussion that actually includes it meaningfully.
      - nerdponx 10y ago
        That's a shame. Extreme/hyperbolic examples have an important place in discourse. They force you to consider your ideas to their logical ends. In this case it illustrated that a line needs to be drawn somewhere by giving an example of something we all agree is reprehensible. As far as I can tell, though, you're opposed to mentioning racial and sexual violence at all in conversation. What is the point of that kind of self-censorship? Rape will continue to be rape even if you never read or say that word again.
        KirinDave 10y ago
        You seem to think that maintaining a polite level in discourse amounts to be censorship. Curiously, we never feel the need to make these hyperbolic examples in the highest levels of discourse (be they academic or political), and yet somehow feel incredibly strongly about allowing them on internet sites. Attempting to evoke violence, sexual assault and child abuse in discourse about something as abstract as the proper rules for radio light interpretation is not a positive addition. We have plenty of opportunities to actually discuss said topics and no dearth of extreme metaphors to reach for to extend arguments to the absurd. We need not pretend this speech is vital for this community. Eroding the bulwark that protects this low and lazy standard as discourse is a net good for the community. Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country.
- mikestew 10y ago
  the phone books have been opt-in for decades Where I live, it used to cost extra to have an unlisted number (it might still, don't know). "Enslave and rape"? You are quite the master of hyperbole, aren't you? Your point might be better made if you dialed back the emotional rhetoric a bit.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    I used the hyperbole tomake specifically clear I don't want to appeal to any "protect X group" or similar rhetoric — I literally wouldn't care if the US was wiped out if it was democratically legitimated — but I do care about Google following those democratically legitimated laws wherever they operate, and that means not collecting SSIDs where I live. BSSIDs might possibly be legal to collect, but SSIDs definitely not. Likely one could even argue for copyright protection on a specifically poetic SSID.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      What is the standard for "democratically legitimated"? Like what if there is some group that is a substantial portion of a population and they decide to force their will on a smaller portion of the population. Say it gets severe. Does their larger number legitimize their actions? Or does it mean something else?
      - kuschku 10y ago
        Democratically legitimated means there is a consensus within of the majority of society, yes. Society can not cater to every minority, but has to hear them at least out, if they can present a logical argument for their position, and consider that. (See also: Petition laws, Election laws)

by grkvlt 10y ago

kuschku 10y ago

Well, here Google had to run a media campaign and had to wait for people explicitly say yes or no to streetview, and the phone books have been opt-in for decades, since the market was liberalized and the Postmonopol ended with it being split into Deutsche Post DHL, Postbank and T-Online. At least for Germany Google could have stayed within of this single law. I don’t care if Google literally would enslave and rape US-Americans – they chose to vote for politics that allows that – but Google should at least stay within of German law in Germany.

KirinDave 10y ago
It was never illegal. It has always been legal. Debates were around asking if people could change the law to make it retroactively illegal. Also: down voted again for emotionally manipulative and outright vile rhetoric. If Hacker News is a place for free speech and open debate, you casually turning every conversation you can to molestation, rape and violence is a violation of the social contract we all have to keep the tone civil, and hurts the goal of honest debate.
- kuschku 10y ago
  But that's literally what I don't care about? Google cando whatever they want, no matter how crazy it would be, in the US, as long as they follow the laws Ivoted for where I live. I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I literally wouldn't care if they used Blackwater's army to level entire cities if the people chose to allow this by voting. It's literally the worst case scenario, and hundred times more, and I wouldn't care. But I do care about them following the laws I voted for where I live. And yes, it was already illegal. German law has a principle where an action being done once or twice is very different from the same being automatically done thousands of times. That includes collecting SSIDs, likely.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > And yes, it was already illegal. Oh really. Fascinating. That seems to line up with the history. > I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I would like to make it clear I specifically don't care what your justification is for invoking that specter. It's at best utterly irrelevant and unneeded. At worst, it's threatening. Find a better way to express this and you won't get downvotes. It's on you to communicate yourself in a socially acceptable way. If you don't care about that, then accept the downvotes as salty fluid that waters the tree of your liberty.
- nerdponx 10y ago
  Did you just see the word "rape" and downvote blindly?
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    I read the whole thing, understood it, dismissed it. Vague or explicit allusions to sexual violence are about as funny/helpful/fair/meaningful/good/logical/whatever as vague allusions to racial violence. So yeah, free downvote for mentioning it outside of a discussion that actually includes it meaningfully.
    - nerdponx 10y ago
      That's a shame. Extreme/hyperbolic examples have an important place in discourse. They force you to consider your ideas to their logical ends. In this case it illustrated that a line needs to be drawn somewhere by giving an example of something we all agree is reprehensible. As far as I can tell, though, you're opposed to mentioning racial and sexual violence at all in conversation. What is the point of that kind of self-censorship? Rape will continue to be rape even if you never read or say that word again.
      - KirinDave 10y ago
        You seem to think that maintaining a polite level in discourse amounts to be censorship. Curiously, we never feel the need to make these hyperbolic examples in the highest levels of discourse (be they academic or political), and yet somehow feel incredibly strongly about allowing them on internet sites. Attempting to evoke violence, sexual assault and child abuse in discourse about something as abstract as the proper rules for radio light interpretation is not a positive addition. We have plenty of opportunities to actually discuss said topics and no dearth of extreme metaphors to reach for to extend arguments to the absurd. We need not pretend this speech is vital for this community. Eroding the bulwark that protects this low and lazy standard as discourse is a net good for the community. Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country.
mikestew 10y ago
the phone books have been opt-in for decades Where I live, it used to cost extra to have an unlisted number (it might still, don't know). "Enslave and rape"? You are quite the master of hyperbole, aren't you? Your point might be better made if you dialed back the emotional rhetoric a bit.
- kuschku 10y ago
  I used the hyperbole tomake specifically clear I don't want to appeal to any "protect X group" or similar rhetoric — I literally wouldn't care if the US was wiped out if it was democratically legitimated — but I do care about Google following those democratically legitimated laws wherever they operate, and that means not collecting SSIDs where I live. BSSIDs might possibly be legal to collect, but SSIDs definitely not. Likely one could even argue for copyright protection on a specifically poetic SSID.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    What is the standard for "democratically legitimated"? Like what if there is some group that is a substantial portion of a population and they decide to force their will on a smaller portion of the population. Say it gets severe. Does their larger number legitimize their actions? Or does it mean something else?
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Democratically legitimated means there is a consensus within of the majority of society, yes. Society can not cater to every minority, but has to hear them at least out, if they can present a logical argument for their position, and consider that. (See also: Petition laws, Election laws)