If Hitler were alive today...

[Molotov]

His job would be that much easier.

Your supermarket knows you're Jewish, if you buy fish balls.

Scary.

Why do ethics not apply to modern technology? Why does Google think it fine to photograph our houses (without our permission) just because they can? Is it just me or is something increasingly wrong with the world, and might Bill Gates, Larry Page and all the other young technocrats be the devils of the future?

[GreekIdiot]

Why do ethics not apply to modern technology? Why does Google think it fine to photograph our houses (without our permission) just because they can? Is it just me or is something increasingly wrong with the world, and might Bill Gates, Larry Page and all the other young technocrats be the devils of the future?

Seriously? An atheist saying "my god"?

But you have a point with google there. It begins with such innocent things and goes down to totalitarianism. Yeah.

[Aethers]

So... people have taken photos of neighbors' yards for decades and no one hard a problem with it (let alone thought they had a right to restrict use of the image of their yard.)

People have been able to post photographs online for years and no one had a problem with it, as long as it was unorganized.

Now Google indexes the same sorts of photos into a map database, and suddenly it's an invasion of privacy? Not really logical here people. Having a right to privacy doesn't mean that someone on the street should be prohibited from taking pictures of your front lawn.

And the "totalitarian" comment is even more over the top.

So I'll pose the question... Molotov, what ethical problems are posed by taking photographs of scenery next to public streets? Should we prohibit police from giving speeding tickets to cars next, because the cars are privately owned and thus shouldn't be allowed to be recorded? I know that's more extreme than what you've implied, but I honestly am wondering what the logic is here, as I see none.

I'll grant that the assumption of the supermarket that a customer is Jewish based on purchases is rather odd, but what's most odd about that, to me, is that the conclusion would be drawn. Presumably it works out for the company statistically somehow... but it's still puzzling why that would be. But if the (uncredited) author of that article doesn't want the grocery store keeping track of his purchases, she can simply stop using a payment method or discount card that allows the store to keep track of her identity. People have choices all the time, though it's easy to complain about ones apparent situation when one refuses to consider other options.

[Darvian]

Why do ethics not apply to modern technology? Why does Google think it fine to photograph our houses (without our permission) just because they can? Is it just me or is something increasingly wrong with the world, and might Bill Gates, Larry Page and all the other young technocrats be the devils of the future?

Seriously? An atheist saying "my god"?

Sorry George I have to pick up on this. I get this type of nonsense from people all the time. I am not a believer and I will as well use the word 'god' or 'jesus' or 'allah' and so on though, one should never over attribute it. The word atheist is extremely narrow-sighted as it is. By definition everyone on the planet is an atheist. No? Alright, you don't believe in Thor do you, perhaps you don't believe it Yum Cimil...either way, your an atheist as there is some man-made God out there you don't believe in. Cheers.

I have to agree as well with Aethers on the Google point. There is a line and it has been established or is being, Molotov. There have been more lawsuits than I could probably count revolving around street-level views of peoples homes that managed to catch them in a compromising position or just caught them inside their house. It is my understanding Google had to correct this much for privacy concerns. I honestly hardly see the harm in this initiative on behalf of Google. I work in I.T. and I am responsible to a certain extend of approving people to be hired by our company. I can tell you very easily of a much more real potential invasion of privacy; social networking sites. Wha? It's actually something many people do not think of. If your name hits my desk as an applicant the first thing I do is google you up. I might find your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend's blog where he/she makes up all sorts of lies about you that could in my judgment make you not worth hiring. Guess what? That's my right to do and quite oddly you have no legal recourse to the potentially libelous or flatly false information published about yourself online. Yeah I could go on about what you can do, as there is a growing market that deals with cleaning up your 'online reputation' for such purposes. And of course there is the occasional idiot who applies and I find their myspace or facebook and they proudly host pictures of themselves doing activities not on the up-and-up by our companies standards or by our national laws. I'd contend these are more practical issues than Google taking images of houses...Just my two cents though.

As far as the store monitoring information on customers, that is nothing new at all. They do it for inventory purposes. No big brother conspiracy to be found here sadly. Call it unfair if you want or an invasion your privacy. Though I bet if stores quit tracking sales of products eventually you'd show up at your local store to buy something you fancy and find it's out. . .

[Molotov]

The problem with Google is that they are publishing the photographs, for the public, and making a profit - without anyone's permission.

I'll grant that the assumption of the supermarket that a customer is Jewish based on purchases is rather odd, but what's most odd about that, to me, is that the conclusion would be drawn. Presumably it works out for the company statistically somehow... but it's still puzzling why that would be. But if the (uncredited) author of that article doesn't want the grocery store keeping track of his purchases, she can simply stop using a payment method or discount card that allows the store to keep track of her identity. People have choices all the time, though it's easy to complain about ones apparent situation when one refuses to consider other options.

Well the author was taking the whole thing rather whimsically. What you're saying is that if we don't want to be monitored we should opt out. We shouldn't receive the benefits of those persons who allow themselves to be monitored - when in fact, in a liberal and democratic society our privacy should be guaranteed by law, and the protection of our privacy should disadvantage us in no way.

Aethers, George wasn't saying the present invasion of our privacy is totalitarian. It's not 'over the top' to imagine how a totalitarian government might use the technology that has sprang up in the last five or ten years. It wouldn't be nice.

If your name hits my desk as an applicant the first thing I do is google you up. I might find your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend's blog where he/she makes up all sorts of lies about you that could in my judgment make you not worth hiring. Guess what? That's my right to do and quite oddly you have no legal recourse to the potentially libelous or flatly false information published about yourself online.

Well, I don't know about your country, but we do in Great Britain. Regardless of slander/libel, there is defamation of character, which applies to anything written or spoken about another person. Which would apply in this case, I imagine.

As far as the store monitoring information on customers, that is nothing new at all. They do it for inventory purposes. No big brother conspiracy to be found here sadly. Call it unfair if you want or an invasion your privacy. Though I bet if stores quit tracking sales of products eventually you'd show up at your local store to buy something you fancy and find it's out. . .

True, collecting information on people is 'nothing new at all'. We did it first with the Domesday Book. The collection of information is not the problem, it's the use of that information and potential for misuse. In the case of the article, it certainly wasn't for fucking 'inventory purposes'.

The word atheist is extremely narrow-sighted as it is. By definition everyone on the planet is an atheist.

So everyone on the planet actively denies the existence of God? Wtf.

George, why were you talking about atheists anyway?

[Darvian]

Try taking what I said about the atheist in context versus what you've done and you might get somewhere. My point is sound. If you have a subjective idea on what your atheism means then so be it. I'm stating the case for the definition of the word which does include denying the existence of God. And as I said quite plainly in my message there are according to some estimates close to 40,000 some known Gods man has invented during our time on this little third-rock from the sun. Now unless you believe in every single one of them, you are whether your like it or not by definition an atheist. Viola.

[Molotov]

Er, not.

Atheism:
–noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If you believe in a god, you're not an atheist. Certainly not the entire population of the world. Voi-fucking-la. (Not viola, by the way, which is a small stringed instrument.)

[Darvian]

Er, not.

Atheism:
–noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If you believe in a god, you're not an atheist. Certainly not the entire population of the world. Voi-fucking-la.

Glad to see you continue to miss basic fundamentals of language. No reason to get belligerent either. As well, thank you for the time for doing what I could have easily done and referenced the definition; it just highlights what I've said. Now, I'll let you get back to your paranoid-induced ravings about how Hitler is alive and all that crackpot stuff your peddling.

[Molotov]

Yeah, whatever. We're all atheists, genius.

Donkey dick sucker
- Phrase
1. A person or persons who sucks donkey dicks.
2. Molotov.

Of course, this definition applies to the whole world, because even when a person isn't sucking a donkey dick, that person could be. There are also millions of donkeys, if a person doesn't suck one donkey dick, he might be sucking another.

[Darvian]

Ad hominem attacks always make me smile. It shows the weakness in your arguments if you have to personally insult the other person.