<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>All Your Privacy Belongs To Google (Trees And Things)</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239</link>
<description>It's a misconception that Google ever said "Do No Evil."  What the search giant, so ubiquitous it has become a verb describing its primary service, does say is "&lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html">it is possible to make money without doing evil&lt;/a> (scroll down to #6)."  But there's a couple in Pittsburgh who don't agree with that.  Aaron and Christine Boring believe that one Google feature has a less than noble effect - it has taken away their privacy.  Google responds, </description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:25:19 EST</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:35:59 EST</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Steve Urkel: Re: public servants</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#24</link>
<description>That's so Japanese, isn't it?</description>
<pubDate>Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:35:59 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>zyxwvutsr: Re: public servants</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#23</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote>&lt;tt>...you would be asked, after initial questioning, to come to either the Ikegami Police Station or the Den-en-Chofu Police Station.&lt;/tt>&lt;/blockquote>It's nice of them to give you a choice.</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:57:23 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: What's It Like Driving A Street View Van?</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#22</link>
<description>great link</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:42:39 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Steve Urkel: Kaimami</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#21</link>
<description>An interesting pice on how street view has greatly offended the &#160;&lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/08/08/japan-letter-to-google-about-street-view/">the Japanese sense of privacy&lt;/a>:&lt;p>&#10;"For people living in urban areas in Jap</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:01:32 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>MayorBob: What's It Like Driving A Street View Van?</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#20</link>
<description>Interesting little &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://ekstreme.com/thingsofsorts/fun-web/chatting-with-a-google-street-view-driver">discussion with a Street View driver&lt;/a> a British guy had in London.</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:01:25 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: Extensions</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#19</link>
<description>That was a very interesting court case in Europe with &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/world/europe/25mosley.html?ref=sports">that very question&lt;/a> at hand. I don't recall it discussed here or on plastic but it's a very compelling</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 23:03:55 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: Extensions</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#18</link>
<description>&lt;i>We don't measure it by how much surveillance is allowed, but by whether each particular instance of surveillance invades someone's privacy. &#160;It is wholly inconsistent, under this model, to say that it's fine if Google invades your privacy but not f</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:28:02 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>profwhat: Re: Extensions</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#17</link>
<description>That's crazy. &#160;You are happy to let the self-important overfed geeks at Google have access to this information, but not the people you have elected and hired to protect yourself? &#160;Google is accountable to no one, &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://ww</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:00:20 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: Extensions</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#16</link>
<description>&lt;i>How is it actually any different, though, when the state has shown itself willing to co-opt the private collection of data as if the state itself had collected the data (in the case of the telecom immunity scandal).&lt;/i>&lt;p>&#10;Well, I obviously don't agree </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:39:04 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: Extensions</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#15</link>
<description>&lt;i>It's quite another thing when it's being done by the state itself.&lt;/i>&#13;&#10;&lt;p>&#13;&#10;How is it actually any different, though, when the state has shown itself willing to co-opt the private collection of data as if the state itself had collected the data (in the</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:36:37 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: Extensions</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#14</link>
<description>&lt;i>port, I'm intrigued by your arguments.  So, what do you think of police departments using cameras to automatically check car license plates, for cars that are parked on streets or driving on streets?&lt;/i>&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;I oppose that, but not on privacy grounds.  I </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:23:27 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>profwhat: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#13</link>
<description>&lt;i>The issue isn't one of defining privacy, its one of property rights.&lt;/i>&lt;p>&#10;I agree; although, increasingly, privacy rights exist only when property rights exist. &#160;Just ask the homeless guy who tried to challenge the warrantless search of the pile </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:29:01 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>wetkarma: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#12</link>
<description>According to the smoking gun link from the writeup, the road was 'clearly marked as private road'. Much of the court's decision should hinge on whether or not a 'reasonable person' would recognize the road as off limits to the public. &lt;p>&#10;Because that is t</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:37:30 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: Extensions</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#11</link>
<description>(A) Cars have to be registered and licensed. (B) It's not a significant change for a cop driving down the street to punch in a number versus having a computer punch it in. No one would have privacy concerns with a robot going down the street and running al</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:20:01 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>profwhat: Extensions</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#10</link>
<description>port, I'm intrigued by your arguments. &#160;So, what do you think of &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/8/1/133233/0243">police departments using cameras to automatically check car license plates&lt;/a>, for cars that are parked</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:57:06 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>zyxwvutsr: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#9</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote>&lt;i>Even if the satellite is directly over your property, it's ludicrous to claim that it's "on" your property&lt;/i>&lt;/blockquote>Yes, that is ludicrous. But I was talking about people standing (or sitting, or whatever) on the ground outside your p</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:19:24 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>MayorBob: You're doing a lot of supposing.</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#8</link>
<description>Mostly about what the Borings would say if their house was simply on the end of a public road in a cul-de-sac.  What they're saying is "hey, this road is a private road and Google (just like everyone else) needs to ask permission to be there."  What Google</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:54:51 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#7</link>
<description>&lt;i>If you are situated in a place on your property where you cannot be seen from off your property, then you have the right to expect privacy.&lt;/i>&lt;p>&#10;Well, do you? &#160;This is where Google's claim about satellite photography becomes interesting. &#160;Ev</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:53:13 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>zyxwvutsr: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#6</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote>&lt;i>...we shouldn't allow the basic argument about property rights (i.e. whether Google's truck had the right to be where it was) to extend into an argument about whether Google's truck had the right to photograph what it did&lt;/i>&lt;/blockquote>Why</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:45:34 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#5</link>
<description>&lt;i>The issue isn't one of defining privacy, its one of property rights. Either you need my permission to come on my property or you don't.&lt;/i>&lt;p>&#10;Well, I agree with you on this one to an extent, but I also think that expectations of property rights can and</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:14:27 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#4</link>
<description>&lt;i>Streisand's house wasn't photographed from her property, but from the air above the ocean. &lt;/i>&lt;p>&#10;True, but a large part of the outrage against Google seems to be less about where the truck took the picture from and more about whether the picture shoul</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:01:30 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>wetkarma: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#3</link>
<description>Without having the slightest intention of impugning your civil liberties cred, I nevertheless disagree.&lt;p>&#10;Google trespassed onto the homeowners land in order to take the picture. Unlike in Streisand case where the photo was from public air space, they act</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:57:58 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>zyxwvutsr: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#2</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote>&lt;i>Most criticized Barbra Streisand when she tried to censor the pictures of her beachfront house that turned up online, but now that Google's out taking pictures and the house that might be photographed is theirs instead of hers, suddenly priv</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:26:13 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: All Your Privacy Belongs To Google</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/31/154637/239#1</link>
<description>I think it's reasonably well known around here that I'm a pretty dedicated (civil) libertarian, so my take on this may or may not be surprising to some. &#160;I tend to side pretty strongly with Google on this one. &#160;First off - if the road wasn't post</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:47:23 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<textInput>
<title>Search Trees And Things</title>
<description></description>
<name>string</name>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/search/</link>
</textInput>

</channel>
</rss>