Indigenous group gets Google to remove images of Australian landscape

[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.

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.

I don't have to do so. I can accept, for the sake of argument, that an owner has the moral right to request the suppression of "trespass"-enabled images. I do not regard any of the images that were removed as 'trespass' images, any more than I consider Disneyland photos as 'trespass' photos, even if Disneyland closed its park to tourists tomorrow.

 

[Metaphor]

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

It's not.

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.

If your argument relies on endlessly mentioning satellite images as a way to not address anything else, then that speaks to the weakness of your argument.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

I don't know if the 'guidelines' are part of the lease, but nothing in those guidelines can possibly obligate Google to do anything, since Google did not enter into any kind of contract with the Anangu.

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

You said:

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.

Presumably, that means I, or any person on earth, can rightfully request Google to take down Street View and satellite images of my property, as a 'privacy issue'? Do you support that?

My response to that is: no, I disagree that X photographing or filming Y's property violates Y's privacy rights per se, and therefore the images Google has and had of Uluru do not violate anybody's privacy rights.

 

[Jokodo]

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

It's not.

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.

If your argument relies on endlessly mentioning satellite images as a way to not address anything else, then that speaks to the weakness of your argument.

You brought up satellite imagery. More than once. Every other mention I can find is in reference to one of yours.

If you cannot admit that, and admit that it was a derail, there is no need to continue this discussion, since you're clearly not interested in a reality-based outcome.

 

[Metaphor]

It's not.



If your argument relies on endlessly mentioning satellite images as a way to not address anything else, then that speaks to the weakness of your argument.

You brought up satellite imagery. More than once. Every other mention I can find is in reference to one of yours.

If you cannot admit that, and admit that it was a derail, there is no need to continue this discussion, since you're clearly not interested in a reality-based outcome.

It was not a derail. It was brought up in a specific context to address a specific assertion about privacy. Nor is it irrelevant in other contexts. If privacy is an issue, then satellite images violate that privacy as surely as other images do.

We have discussed the 'trespass' nature of the images. You were mistaken about the context that the images were taken. It's you who isn't interested in a 'reality-based' discussion.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know if the 'guidelines' are part of the lease, but nothing in those guidelines can possibly obligate Google to do anything, since Google did not enter into any kind of contract with the Anangu.

No one claimed it obligated Google to do anything. You are the one complaining about Google choosing to accede to the request.

Presumably, that means I, or any person on earth, can rightfully request Google to take down Street View and satellite images of my property, as a 'privacy issue'? Do you support that?

Yes, I think you should be able to do so. Unfortunately, in the USA, one does not have that right.

My response to that is: no, I disagree that X photographing or filming Y's property violates Y's privacy rights per se, and therefore the images Google has and had of Uluru do not violate anybody's privacy rights.

"Per se?" It violates their privacy rights because in this case, Y does not want it done.

 

[Metaphor]

No one claimed it obligated Google to do anything. You are the one complaining about Google choosing to accede to the request.


Yes, I think you should be able to do so. Unfortunately, in the USA, one does not have that right.

My response to that is: no, I disagree that X photographing or filming Y's property violates Y's privacy rights per se, and therefore the images Google has and had of Uluru do not violate anybody's privacy rights.

"Per se?" It violates their privacy rights because in this case, Y does not want it done.

I say "per se" because there could be scenarios where privacy is violated, but merely taking the photo does not do violate privacy.

 

[laughing dog]

No one claimed it obligated Google to do anything. You are the one complaining about Google choosing to accede to the request.


Yes, I think you should be able to do so. Unfortunately, in the USA, one does not have that right.

My response to that is: no, I disagree that X photographing or filming Y's property violates Y's privacy rights per se, and therefore the images Google has and had of Uluru do not violate anybody's privacy rights.

"Per se?" It violates their privacy rights because in this case, Y does not want it done.

I say "per se" because there could be scenarios where privacy is violated, but merely taking the photo does not do violate privacy.

Depends on the situation.