Indigenous group gets Google to remove images of Australian landscape

[Metaphor]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...walking-on-uluru-through-street-view/12693670

Parks Australia has asked Google to remove images of the top of the sacred Indigenous site, Uluru, which allow users to walk on its summit.

Traditional owners have banned visitors from the top of the rock, which has spiritual significance to Anangu, Uluru's traditional owners.
Google Maps' street view function allows people to move around environments as part of a virtual walking tour.
It contains 360-degree images of the summit of Uluru, allowing users to effectively defy the visitors' ban.

So...looking at successive images on a screen is 'defying' a ban to physically walk on a rock.

A spokesperson for Parks Australia said it had, "alerted Google Australia to the user-generated images from the Uluru summit that have been posted on their mapping platform".

Parks had "requested that the content be immediately removed in accordance with the wishes of Anangu, Uluru's traditional owners, and the national park's Film and Photography Guidelines".

Google Australia told the ABC that it was working on having all the images removed, including the user-generated content that allowed the walk-through.
But it added that the changes may take up to 24 hours to come into effect.
"We understand Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is deeply sacred to the Anangu people," a Google Australia spokesperson said.

"As soon as Parks Australia raised their concerns about this user contribution, we removed the imagery."
Parks Australia stopped visitors climbing Uluru in October 2019.

Well, now we are all the richer from being banned for looking at images of a rock, because it is against the religion of some people to do so.

Keep it up clown world!

 

[Trausti]

https://duckduckgo.com/

 

[repoman]

You mean Ayers Rock?

 

[bigfield]

So...looking at successive images on a screen is 'defying' a ban to physically walk on a rock.

Well, now we are all the richer from being banned for looking at images of a rock, because it is against the religion of some people to do so.

Keep it up clown world!

Yeah, it's absurd. But then again, the original ban from walking on the rock in the first place was also absurd.

What we're seeing is a retaliatory exercise of power. When the parks board voted to ban the climb, one of the board members, Sammy Wilson, said, "The Government needs to respect what we are saying about our culture in the same way it expects us to abide by its laws." (link) However I don't think this is just about getting respect from the government, but getting respect from everyone.

"Spiritual reasons" or not, it basically boils down to "we don't want you to climb it, and now you can't."

 

[Jokodo]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...walking-on-uluru-through-street-view/12693670

Parks Australia has asked Google to remove images of the top of the sacred Indigenous site, Uluru, which allow users to walk on its summit.

Traditional owners have banned visitors from the top of the rock, which has spiritual significance to Anangu, Uluru's traditional owners.
Google Maps' street view function allows people to move around environments as part of a virtual walking tour.
It contains 360-degree images of the summit of Uluru, allowing users to effectively defy the visitors' ban.

So...looking at successive images on a screen is 'defying' a ban to physically walk on a rock.

A spokesperson for Parks Australia said it had, "alerted Google Australia to the user-generated images from the Uluru summit that have been posted on their mapping platform".

Parks had "requested that the content be immediately removed in accordance with the wishes of Anangu, Uluru's traditional owners, and the national park's Film and Photography Guidelines".

Google Australia told the ABC that it was working on having all the images removed, including the user-generated content that allowed the walk-through.
But it added that the changes may take up to 24 hours to come into effect.
"We understand Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is deeply sacred to the Anangu people," a Google Australia spokesperson said.

"As soon as Parks Australia raised their concerns about this user contribution, we removed the imagery."
Parks Australia stopped visitors climbing Uluru in October 2019.

Well, now we are all the richer from being banned for looking at images of a rock, because it is against the religion of some people to do so.

Keep it up clown world!

I'm pretty sure that, if Google Street View, through some misunderstanding, had images of a drive along your private road passing through your private estate up, you could ask them to take those images down too. *Why* you don't want those images up doesn't even enter the equation, so painting that as religious nut-jobbery misses the point.

Obviously you don't believe that traditional ownership by indigenous groups should be treated on a par with other forms of land ownership, but I seem to have missed where you justified that belief.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, because the rights of random fucking tourists should outstrip the rights of those whose land it is. Jesus Christ.

If some white asshole had thought to put up a fence and a "private property" sign at the right moment in history, you would consider those "land rights" to be sacrosanct and inviolable, but a land relationship thousands of years old? Means nothing.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm pretty sure that, if Google Street View, through some misunderstanding, had images of a drive along your private road passing through your private estate up, you could ask them to take those images down too.

Obviously you don't believe that traditional ownership by indigenous groups should be treated on a par with other forms of land ownership, but I seem to have missed where you justified that belief.

Native title is not treated by the law of the land as if it were the same as other kinds of title, but that isn't the point.

Indigenous groups -- such as the traditional owners of Uluru -- already control the physical actions of people over the land they own. But that surely does not give them the right to dictate what parts of their land other people may view virtually.

And to address your assumption: no, I don't expect Google to take down images of my property, which it already has in terms of both Google Street view and Google Earth, and nor would they do it if I asked them.

EDITED TO CLARIFY: Google wouldn't do it for me (or Barbra Streisand), but they did do it for Dick Cheney and the Anangu. Go figure.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, because the rights of random fucking tourists should outstrip the rights of those whose land it is. Jesus Christ.

I have not suggested that tourists have the right to walk on Uluru (they do not have that legal right, though in my opinion they have the moral right to do so).

You are suggesting that people can ban images if they don't like them, as long as the person asking for the banning is an indigenous group.

If some white asshole had thought to put up a fence and a "private property" sign at the right moment in history, you would consider those "land rights" to be sacrosanct and inviolable, but a land relationship thousands of years old? Means nothing.

If some 'white asshole' put up a fence and a "private property" sign, but then also successfully forbade satellite imagery of the property, and also forbade images of the property that were taken legally and with the full knowledge of the owner because she opened her property up to tourism and allowed photography, then I'd be pretty fucking angry at said white asshole. You do not own images of your private property.

 

[ruby sparks]

If some 'white asshole' put up a fence and a "private property" sign, but then also successfully forbade satellite imagery of the property, and also forbade images of the property that were taken legally and with the full knowledge of the owner because she opened her property up to tourism and allowed photography, then I'd be pretty fucking angry at said white asshole. You do not own images of your private property.

I think the better analogy here, rather than static satellite imagery, would be if you owned say, a wood with paths through it, and google provided, to the public, video walk-throughs along those paths. Or maybe it could even be just your large, beautiful landscaped garden. Personally, I think I would mind if google offered to the public, and claimed to own, public video walk-throughs of my garden, without my permission. In any case, I don't think it would be unreasonable to mind.

Also, I'm not sure your scenario, "full knowledge of the owner because she opened her property up to tourism and allowed photography" applies here? I thought it was the opposite, that the property is not open to tourism?

 

[ruby sparks]

.. in my opinion they have the moral right to do so.

Debatable, I think, as regards tourists walking on the rock. An opposing moral case could be made, namely that the indigenous people suffered so greatly in so many ways and lost so much that letting them at least still own one large rock outcrop is not morally unreasonable.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, because the rights of random fucking tourists should outstrip the rights of those whose land it is. Jesus Christ.

If some white asshole had thought to put up a fence and a "private property" sign at the right moment in history, you would consider those "land rights" to be sacrosanct and inviolable, but a land relationship thousands of years old? Means nothing.

Yup - that's it. White makes right. After all the mocking, posturing and rhetorical contortions by Meta and his ilk, it comes right down to that.

 

[laughing dog]

The park in question is owned by the Ananagu and leased to Parks Australia. There are published guidelines for photography and filming (Google
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park - Sacred Land Film Project, click that link and the guidelines download).

In essence, Google in violation of the guidelines established by the owners of the property and agreed to by the leasees. Frankly, I think this is really a privacy issue and I think anyone should be able to keep anyone from photographing or filming their property based on privacy alone. I don't think anyone has the moral right to violate the privacy of someone else.

 

[Toni]

I'm pretty sure that, if Google Street View, through some misunderstanding, had images of a drive along your private road passing through your private estate up, you could ask them to take those images down too.

Obviously you don't believe that traditional ownership by indigenous groups should be treated on a par with other forms of land ownership, but I seem to have missed where you justified that belief.

Native title is not treated by the law of the land as if it were the same as other kinds of title, but that isn't the point.

Maybe that IS the point.

Indigenous groups -- such as the traditional owners of Uluru -- already control the physical actions of people over the land they own. But that surely does not give them the right to dictate what parts of their land other people may view virtually.

I understand why the Anangu would want the images taken down. For them it is a sacred place, not something to be gawked at by the curious.

 

[Toni]

The park in question is owned by the Ananagu and leased to Parks Australia. There are published guidelines for photography and filming (Google
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park - Sacred Land Film Project, click that link and the guidelines download).

In essence, Google in violation of the guidelines established by the owners of the property and agreed to by the leasees. Frankly, I think this is really a privacy issue and I think anyone should be able to keep anyone from photographing or filming their property based on privacy alone. I don't think anyone has the moral right to violate the privacy of someone else.

^^this^^

 

[Metaphor]

If some 'white asshole' put up a fence and a "private property" sign, but then also successfully forbade satellite imagery of the property, and also forbade images of the property that were taken legally and with the full knowledge of the owner because she opened her property up to tourism and allowed photography, then I'd be pretty fucking angry at said white asshole. You do not own images of your private property.

I think the better analogy here, rather than static satellite imagery, would be if you owned say, a wood with paths through it, and google provided, to the public, video walk-throughs along those paths. Or maybe it could even be just your large, beautiful landscaped garden. Personally, I think I would mind if google offered to the public, and claimed to own, public video walk-throughs of my garden, without my permission. In any case, I don't think it would be unreasonable to mind.

Also, I'm not sure your scenario, "full knowledge of the owner because she opened her property up to tourism and allowed photography" applies here? I thought it was the opposite, that the property is not open to tourism?

The site is open to tourism. Visitors have been forbidden from climbing Uluru since October 2019. Before that, people were allowed to climb and people took the photos that were submitted to Google.

Google did not claim to own the photographs, but perhaps the people who submitted them waived their right to ownership.

 

[Metaphor]

The park in question is owned by the Ananagu and leased to Parks Australia. There are published guidelines for photography and filming (Google
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park - Sacred Land Film Project, click that link and the guidelines download).

In essence, Google in violation of the guidelines established by the owners of the property and agreed to by the leasees. Frankly, I think this is really a privacy issue and I think anyone should be able to keep anyone from photographing or filming their property based on privacy alone. I don't think anyone has the moral right to violate the privacy of someone else.

Violation of the guidelines? I violate the guidelines of many religions every day, and it is nobody's place to tell me I ought not violate the guidelines of their religion.

If Google Earth is violating the Anangu's privacy, they are violating the privacy of billions of people across the world, since they have street views of residences in nearly every country.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, because the rights of random fucking tourists should outstrip the rights of those whose land it is. Jesus Christ.

If some white asshole had thought to put up a fence and a "private property" sign at the right moment in history, you would consider those "land rights" to be sacrosanct and inviolable, but a land relationship thousands of years old? Means nothing.

Yup - that's it. White makes right. After all the mocking, posturing and rhetorical contortions by Meta and his ilk, it comes right down to that.

I answered this post but you've chosen to ignore that and instead accuse me of white supremacy.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm pretty sure that, if Google Street View, through some misunderstanding, had images of a drive along your private road passing through your private estate up, you could ask them to take those images down too.

Obviously you don't believe that traditional ownership by indigenous groups should be treated on a par with other forms of land ownership, but I seem to have missed where you justified that belief.

Native title is not treated by the law of the land as if it were the same as other kinds of title, but that isn't the point.

It is not treated the exact same way, but I have yet to see an argument why it shouldn't be treated analogously in this particular respect.

Indigenous groups -- such as the traditional owners of Uluru -- already control the physical actions of people over the land they own. But that surely does not give them the right to dictate what parts of their land other people may view virtually.

What's the logic behind that "surely"?

And to address your assumption: no, I don't expect Google to take down images of my property, which it already has in terms of both Google Street view and Google Earth, and nor would they do it if I asked them.

Well that's apples and oranges. Here you are talking about images taken from space, or from a public road, that happen to also show your property from the outside, a view anyone bothering to check it out can get without trespassing. While in the OP, we are talking about images taken from *inside* the property.

I more apt analogy would be a squatter who occupied your home while you were studying or working abroad or out of state and who published imagery of your bedroom, or images from inside your garden. I'm not a lawyer nor am I working for Google, but I am relatively certain they'd take those images down if you asked them to.

 

[Metaphor]

Maybe that IS the point.

Google Street view has photos of hundreds of millions of houses taken without the owner's permission. Ought Google take down any street view photos if people with freehold title ask Google to do so?

Google Earth also has photos of private residences, including views that could not be seen from the street. Ought Google take down any aerial photos if people with freehold title ask Google to do so?

 

[Metaphor]

What's the logic behind that "surely"?

That nobody has the right to expect others not to look at images of their property? And that that applies even when you have a right to expect people not to trespass on your property.

Well that's apples and oranges. Here you are talking about images taken from space, or from a public road, that happen to also show your property from the outside, a view anyone bothering to check it out can get without trespassing. While in the OP, we are talking about images taken from *inside* the property.

I more apt analogy would be a squatter who occupied your home while you were studying or working abroad or out of state and who published imagery of your bedroom, or images from inside your garden. I'm not a lawyer nor am I working for Google, but I am relatively certain they'd take those images down if you asked them to.

No: that is not a more apt analogy. The images were not taken illegally, but taken before October 2019 when it was legal to pay money to enter the park, walk on the rock, and take photos of it.

A more apt analogy would be paying money to go to a theme park, and taking photos of the park and your family while you were there. Later, the theme park demands that the images you took not be available to the public, even though the person who took the images is the owner of them.