Indigenous group gets Google to remove images of Australian landscape

[Elixir]

That salient fact is that white people get all butthurt when non-white people assert any rights whatsoever.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

No-one is "banning images they don't like". We are talking about images that were taken while trespassing.

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,

What the fuck are you on about? There is no shortage of satellite images of Uluru, nor does your article even mention removing satellite imagery. This appears to be exclusively about images taken during the ascent - images that require trespassing in order to take them in the first place.

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,

At what point did the Anangu willingly open up their property to tourists? As far as I can tell from afar, they've always been opposed to tourists on the rock but were until recently ignored by Parks Australia. So it's not at all like the owner let tourists in and then changed their mind about it and wanted them to delete all photos, but more like a squatter did.

then I'd be pretty fucking angry at said white asshole. You do not own images of your private property.

Who says you do? In this particular case, we are however talking not about images taken from a public space that allow a view into a private property, but images taken while trespassing on that property. Is it so hard to tell the difference?

 

[Jokodo]

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?

Does Google Earth and/or Google Street View have photos taken from inside private properties/private estates without the owners' permission?

The article you link in your OP doesn't mention images of Uluru taken from the base, nor satellite images. It exclusively talks of images taken from the summit.

Maybe you should make it a habit of reading more carefully before tying your pants in a knot.

 

[Metaphor]

No-one is "banning images they don't like". We are talking about images that were taken while trespassing.

The images were not taken while trespassing.

What the fuck are you on about? There is no shortage of satellite images of Uluru, nor does your article even mention removing satellite imagery. This appears to be exclusively about images taken during the ascent - images that require trespassing in order to take them in the first place.

The images were not taken while trespassing.

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,

At what point did the Anangu willingly open up their property to tourists?

In October 1985, from the moment they had the title handed to them by the Governor General.

As far as I can tell from afar, they've always been opposed to tourists on the rock but were until recently ignored by Parks Australia.

They were not ignored. The Anangu people had the power to ban people walking on the Rock from October 1985.

So it's not at all like the owner let tourists in and then changed their mind about it and wanted them to delete all photos, but more like a squatter did.

It is nothing like what a squatter did.

It is like Disney allowing people to pay an entry fee and take photos in its park from 1985 to 2019, and then asking Google to ban those images.

Who says you do? In this particular case, we are however talking not about images taken from a public space that allow a view into a private property, but images taken while trespassing on that property. Is it so hard to tell the difference?

The images were not taken while trespassing.

 

[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?

Does Google Earth and/or Google Street View have photos taken from inside private properties/private estates without the owners' permission?

The article you link in your OP doesn't mention images of Uluru taken from the base, nor satellite images. It exclusively talks of images taken from the summit.

Maybe you should make it a habit of reading more carefully before tying your pants in a knot.

Images taken from the summit were not taken while trespassing.

 

[Metaphor]

That salient fact is that white people get all butthurt when non-white people assert any rights whatsoever.

Sure hun.

 

[Jokodo]

The images were not taken while trespassing.



The images were not taken while trespassing.

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,

At what point did the Anangu willingly open up their property to tourists?

In October 1985, from the moment they had the title handed to them by the Governor General.

As far as I can tell from afar, they've always been opposed to tourists on the rock but were until recently ignored by Parks Australia.

They were not ignored. The Anangu people had the power to ban people walking on the Rock from October 1985.

Can you provide a source for that? What I'm finding is that the Anangu were handed the title on the condition that they'd lease it back to Parks Australia, and that they were promised that the climb would be stopped back then (a demand they had been making for longer than that), a promise the government chose to break.

Be that as it may, can you at least admit that your frequent references to satellite images are totally off topic since we are exclusively talking about images taken from within the property?

 

[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.

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.

Totally irrelevant to the issue. The land belongs to the Ananagu. They are entitled to set conditions on the use of their land. If the leasee violates those conditions, the Anangu can cancel the lease.

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.

Do you have a point? Whataboutism is not an argument.

 

[Metaphor]

Can you provide a source for that? What I'm finding is that the Anangu were handed the title on the condition that they'd lease it back to Parks Australia,

Nothing I have read says the handback was conditional on re-leasing the land to Parks Australia, though several sources do say it was immediately re-leased, which was obviously agreed before the handback.

https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/uluru-handback-anangu

The ceremony to handback the title took place at the base of Uluru on 26 October 1985. Hundreds of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people looked on as Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephen passed over the title deeds to Uluru–Kata Tjuta.

The traditional owners then signed an agreement to lease the park back to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for 99 years.
A board of management was established with a majority of Anangu members. The park continues to be jointly managed.

The board of management has a majority of Anangu members, and the board made the decision to continue to discourage the climb (from 1985) to agreeing to the conditions about what would trigger a permanent ban (in 2010), and finally banning the climb (in November 2017, effective from October 2019).

Be that as it may, can you at least admit that your frequent references to satellite images are totally off topic since we are exclusively talking about images taken from within the property?

I was illustrating that images of a property do not belong to the person who owns the property. They simply don't.

As for the images taken by the tourists, I believe those images belong to the tourists who took them, as I've already said. And I also believe that between 1985 and 2019, or at the very minimum between 2010 and 2019, the board of management allowed the climbing of the Rock.

 

[Metaphor]

Totally irrelevant to the issue. The land belongs to the Ananagu. They are entitled to set conditions on the use of their land. If the leasee violates those conditions, the Anangu can cancel the lease.

Who violated the lease?

Do you have a point? Whataboutism is not an argument.

It is not a whataboutism. It's an illustration of the absurd idea that Google is violating the privacy rights of billions by posting images it took, or re-distributing images sent to them. It should be clear to you that I do not think google is violating the privacy rights of billions (at least not with Google Street View images it isn't).

 

[Jokodo]

Totally irrelevant to the issue. The land belongs to the Ananagu. They are entitled to set conditions on the use of their land. If the leasee violates those conditions, the Anangu can cancel the lease.

Who violated the lease?

Do you have a point? Whataboutism is not an argument.

It is not a whataboutism. It's an illustration of the absurd idea that Google is violating the privacy rights of billions by posting images it took, or re-distributing images sent to them. It should be clear to you that I do not think google is violating the privacy rights of billions (at least not with Google Street View images it isn't).

The difference between a satellite image/streetside image and an image taken from within the property is about as stark as the difference between collecting apples that fell from a neighbour's tree onto your yard, and climbing the fence to collect the entire harvest.

Your continuous use of "but Google distributes imagery of *everybody's* property through Google Earth / satellite view in Google Maps" just shows you're not arguing in good faith.

 

[Metaphor]

The difference between a satellite image/streetside image and an image taken from within the property is about as stark as the difference between collecting apples that fell from a neighbour's tree onto your yard, and climbing the fence to collect the entire harvest.

Your continuous use of "but Google distributes imagery of *everybody's* property through Google Earth / satellite view in Google Maps" just shows you're not arguing in good faith.

You are the only person who has made the distinction between "on the property" and "off property" images. I suspect Toni would endorse google removing satellite and street view images of Uluru if the Anangu people requested it.

However, I believe the images taken on the Rock, between 1985 and 2019, were taken by people who had the moral and legal right to take them.

 

[Metaphor]

Many indigenous Australians also have taboos on speaking the name of a dead person, or (after photography was introduced in Australia by Europeans) looking at their image.

But that does not entitle indigenous Australians to enforce their taboos on others who do not share them.

 

[Politesse]

However, I believe the images taken on the Rock, between 1985 and 2019, were taken by people who had the moral and legal right to take them.

If you assume that imperial oppression of indigneous peoples on the basis of race is right and justified, then yes.

 

[Jokodo]

The difference between a satellite image/streetside image and an image taken from within the property is about as stark as the difference between collecting apples that fell from a neighbour's tree onto your yard, and climbing the fence to collect the entire harvest.

Your continuous use of "but Google distributes imagery of *everybody's* property through Google Earth / satellite view in Google Maps" just shows you're not arguing in good faith.

You are the only person who has made the distinction between "on the property" and "off property" images. I suspect Toni would endorse google removing satellite and street view images of Uluru if the Anangu people requested it.

However, I believe the images taken on the Rock, between 1985 and 2019, were taken by people who had the moral and legal right to take them.

Maybe they did, maybe they did not.

None of that changes the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges in an attempt to drive home a point.

It doesn't speak to the strength of your argument if you have to do so.

 

[laughing dog]

Totally irrelevant to the issue. The land belongs to the Ananagu. They are entitled to set conditions on the use of their land. If the leasee violates those conditions, the Anangu can cancel the lease.

Who violated the lease?

The Anangu asked the lessee to make sure its guidelines were being followed - something any property owner is entitled to do. If those guidelines are part of the lease, then the leassee needs to enforce them or they are violating the lease.

It is not a whataboutism. It's an illustration of the absurd idea that Google is violating the privacy rights of billions by posting images it took, or re-distributing images sent to them. It should be clear to you that I do not think google is violating the privacy rights of billions (at least not with Google Street View images it isn't).

Unless those people are complaining about their privacy rights, it is a fucking stupid whataboutism "illustration" (or, if you prefer, example).

 

[Jokodo]

I suspect Toni would endorse google removing satellite and street view images of Uluru if the Anangu people requested it.

Also, I didn't realize this thread was about what you suspect Toni would endorse.

I genuinely believed it was about what the Anangu actually requested, and Google's reaction to that, in the real world.

The did not request that satellite images be removed, and Google didn't mention planning on removing them, so every word you've mentioned about satellite images remains off topic.

At least if we want this to be a discussion about the real world, not about what your imaginary version of lefties might endorse in an alternate reality.

 

[Axulus]

I suspect Toni would endorse google removing satellite and street view images of Uluru if the Anangu people requested it.

Also, I didn't realize this thread was about what you suspect Toni would endorse.

I genuinely believed it was about what the Anangu actually requested, and Google's reaction to that, in the real world.

The did not request that satellite images be removed, and Google didn't mention planning on removing them, so every word you've mentioned about satellite images remains off topic.

At least if we want this to be a discussion about the real world, not about what your imaginary version of lefties might endorse in an alternate reality.

Was there a photography ban on the summit pre 2019? If not, then the correct anology would be a private property owner opening up access to their property to the public for a fee and allowing photos to be taken, and then requiring the user to delete those photos years later. What is the legal and/or moral basis for that?

 

[Jokodo]

I suspect Toni would endorse google removing satellite and street view images of Uluru if the Anangu people requested it.

Also, I didn't realize this thread was about what you suspect Toni would endorse.

I genuinely believed it was about what the Anangu actually requested, and Google's reaction to that, in the real world.

The did not request that satellite images be removed, and Google didn't mention planning on removing them, so every word you've mentioned about satellite images remains off topic.

At least if we want this to be a discussion about the real world, not about what your imaginary version of lefties might endorse in an alternate reality.

Was there a photography ban on the summit pre 2019? If not, then the correct anology would be a private property owner opening up access to their property to the public for a fee and allowing photos to be taken, and then requiring the user to delete those photos years later. What is the legal and/or moral basis for that?

Your reply doesn't even *touch* on anything I've said in the particular post I'm replying to.

 

[Axulus]

Was there a photography ban on the summit pre 2019? If not, then the correct anology would be a private property owner opening up access to their property to the public for a fee and allowing photos to be taken, and then requiring the user to delete those photos years later. What is the legal and/or moral basis for that?

Your reply doesn't even *touch* on anything I've said in the particular post I'm replying to.

You said you wanted it be a discussion about the real world and not about the satellite photos, which is exactly want my post was. How is that not touching on anything you said?