What is Digg?116 Comments
- coderukus, on 06/01/2008, -12/+115Google should block their private community from accessing any google service, it's only fair.
- Four20, on 05/31/2008, -18/+96the thing here is. . .google isn't doing anything that someone walking down the street with a camera could do
get over yourself small minnesota town - chicoer2001, on 06/01/2008, -3/+54A commoner with a camera cant walk down the street. It's a private town. The whole town is off limit to non residents. I wonder if residents have to walk around with a badge on or something. I'd hate to be a repair man making a call in that town. They must be harassed.
- haentz, on 05/31/2008, -5/+40I wonder if they are afraid that people will find hookers and boob-flashing girls in their community.
- StripeyMagee, on 06/01/2008, -3/+37Dear North Oaks residents, I just looked at your pics while sitting nude in front of my computer, bwhahahaha!
- dominikkom, on 06/01/2008, -3/+33Featured comment from story
"This negative reaction to this story surprises me. I mean, its private property and the folks in North Oaks pay for all the roads and infrastructure themselves. It seems well within their rights. When I wrote the Neighborhood Spotlight column for the Star Tribune a few years back, I had to stand on the street and take pictures of homes as examples of real estate in a given place. I hated doing it. I used to tell my editor, Jim, that he'd have to bail me out or visit me in the hospital should I end up in an altercation over the practice. Luckily, I never did, but I know I ruffled some feathers and got some stare downs from residents. But I knew I had the law on my side with public road under my feet. In the case of North Oaks, there is no public space from which to photograph from. And if North Oakians want to exercise their right to privacy, I see no reason why they shouldn't. In a world with paparazzi stalking celebrities at every turn and nothing is too sacred to throw onto the World Wide Web, I find it refreshing for a group to decide to opt out of it all." - inactive, on 06/01/2008, -9/+36What have they got to hide eh? Sounds suspicious to me.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=N ... - chicoer2001, on 06/01/2008, -9/+34I wonder who put in the phone lines in that town? Are they private or did the government? What about the sewer system?
- FUR10N, on 06/01/2008, -1/+23If they won't let Google go in their town, then Google shouldn't let them go on its servers
- grungegbunny, on 06/01/2008, -8/+27Technology is here get over it.
- CarzorStelatis, on 06/01/2008, -1/+19That's exactly their point - an ordinary citizen, who didn't live there, walking down the street would also be trespassing.
- grumpyrain, on 06/01/2008, -0/+16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- Pogojoe, on 06/01/2008, -9/+22Gert orf mar larned!
- SPThom, on 06/01/2008, -3/+15I guess Google ought to take those roads off the maps too, oughtn't they?
- trevor98, on 06/01/2008, -4/+15These are private streets not maintained by the city and the residents (as a community) can keep almost anyone out. Their request is just stupid and hopefully they will suffer for that stupidity, however, the community has the authority to make this stupid decision.
- haxcorner, on 06/01/2008, -2/+13The story didn't say much about it that I saw - but was Google on public land taking the pictures or private property? If Google was outside of the city limits (public land), then I can't imagine the city has any grounds for their claim. On the other hand, if Google entered the city and took photos - that's another story.
If I have something on my property that I don't want others to see from public roads, I would think it's my duty to secure those objects to reasonably protect my privacy ... maybe the town should invest in a big entrance gate, a 20ft fence and a really, really big tarp to protect them from aerial photographic assault. - GaijinTenshi, on 06/01/2008, -1/+10My theory: (another) Polygamist Ranch.
- trevor98, on 06/01/2008, -2/+10Ma Bell (the the support of the US government) put up the phone lines. Sewer was put in by the developer (if they have it instead of septic systems) under municipality rules.
What's your point. - inactive, on 06/01/2008, -4/+11All your streets are belong to us.
- jhop, on 06/01/2008, -1/+8Looks like Google was quick to react.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&ie=UTF8&laye ... - jonjonaramacon, on 06/01/2008, -1/+8When is there anything interesting to look at in a suburb anyway?
- Acglaphotis, on 06/01/2008, -3/+10Why do you propose such cruel punishment? Imagine having to use yahoo or live search for the rest of your life.
- Indecision, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7"Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In more modern English: Just because a right is not listed, that doesn't mean people don't have that right.
In fact, the general consensus is that you have rights to everything that hasn't been specifically denied by law. There is no law (yet) denying a general right to privacy, and therefore, we may enjoy that right (for now). - radarplane, on 06/01/2008, -1/+7Hmm, this story gives me an idea I would have never had before the protest. I want to go look at that town with google technology.
- timberwolfdp, on 06/01/2008, -3/+9""It's not the hoity-toity folks trying to figure out how to keep the world away," said Mayor Thomas Watson."
Actually yes, it is. - MtheoryX, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Godwin.
Or, rather...Referential Godwin. - VladII, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5It's probably because he dupes stuff and makes the front page with it cause he's a power user. This particular story was up for a day, from the same source, before babyman dugg it. And it has 5 diggs.
- rusty0101, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5The streets the Google camera vehicle was on are private. i.e. The people who live in the community have paid the full price for construction and maintenance of those roads. They have the right to refuse any individual access to those roads, and they are saying that Google does not have the right to preempt that privilege.
Whether you think that they should have that right or not is pretty much irrelevant to them. - Aikidi, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4exactly.
If microsoft was behind this and not google, who would be defending them?
If bush was behind this and not google (though they probably already do this) there would be screams for blood. - inactive, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5I think the point he was making is that if the gov't used public finances to put in the sewer, electrical and other systems, then that means the town isn't really private.
- inactive, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4It's not privately funded, ordinary citizens paid for it
- bearcat8543, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4dey took er jobs!
- Fordi, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4It seems to me: Google requires access to the same unrestricted information as any other person as a way to operate their business. In return for this access, they provide free access to the vast libraries of data that they collect. Their advertising system may be their source of revenue, but their resource stream comes from their indexing of public data.
As such, if a town denies them access, they're breaking a tacit agreement between Google and the world. I know Google isn't spiteful like that, but I think they'd be perfectly justified in denying this little podunk of access to Google in response. - ubuwalker31, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4According to the town’s website: “the City owns no property....since residents’ properties extend to halfway across the road, all residential roads in the City are private and for the use of North Oaks residents and their invited guests only."
First, every resident in this town is a trespasser because they drive along portions streets of streets that they don’t own. However, I imagine that this permission is granted by use of covenants in the master plan of the community...but maybe not...who knows.
Second, what about interstate commerce? If a truck deviates from Rt 96 or Hodgson Road in order to get to another community, wouldn't they in violation of this criminal statute? This seems so overly broad that it could be a violation of the commerce clause. You can't ban interstate commerce from your town.
Thirdly, what about people who want to exercise their free speech rights and have a public protest? Main streets and areas owned by corporations in “company towns” are considered public for free speech purposes, so it seems that prohibiting access to these areas would also be unconstitutional.
This sort of extreme privatization which only allows outwardly public spaces to be used only by private individuals seems extremely wrong to me. - rorrison, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Whart?
- hockachu, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4http://www.city-data.com/city/North-Oaks-Minnesota ... gives you an idea about the people that said GTFO.
- ronmexico, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4It's no different than all the gated communities out west, I doubt they let Google in those. The difference here is that Minnesota isn't into the whole gated community thing. It really should be treated no differently.
- enderu, on 06/01/2008, -4/+8It's nice to see the majority of Digg users side with the Bush Administration in the belief that if you've got nothing to hide, who needs privacy?
I love the two-sided nature of Digg. OMFG, BUSH IS INFRINGING UPON OUR RIGHTS. And then, when a town stands up for itself and asks for a little privacy (which is well within their rights), they're suddenly evil. - punkcat, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3i know, and its not like anyone really cares out side of them. there is no scenario where a random person will decide to look into their neighborhood.
and if so, so what. they see you painted your door white? - Fordi, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4I think Google should remove the Street View - and the street maps and satellite view. They don't want to take part in a great thing, they can do without the rest of it, too.
- inactive, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4hmmmmmmmmmm the stepford wives
- johndi, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4Even today about 25% of homes in America rely on wells and septic tanks not municipal water. I wouldn't be surprised if this town picked such a system on purpose to increase their self reliance. 50 years ago outhouses weren't uncommon. I'd fear for you in an extended power outage.
- Ajajadude, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3I'm thinking cannibalistic communists.
- hexydes, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3TOOK UHR JWBZ!
- rmmcclay, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Google apparently will remove street view data if asked. A friend of mine discovered his house was street-viewed and he ask them to remove it, as a test. They wrote back and asked him some questions, and then they removed it.
- Yenly, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2I used to landscape some of the houses in that neighborhood during my summers in college... to be honest, there were some nice people who lived there. One lady let us swim in her pool on a humid 98 degree day... and then brought us lemonade.
You all have no idea how painful it is lifting big retaining wall blocks in the heat while a giant pool sits there and taunts you from 15 feet away. I always told my buds to 'accidentally' knock me in with their wheelbarrow...
I wonder what the community thinks of Zillow? Checking it out now, the houses arn't as expensive as I once thought (thanks to the housing bubble?) - mickaloha, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Would the post office have to give an address to all the locations? Since they are private roads couldn't the town change them? If I was the post office, I would just do a big drop off at the front and not waste my time delivering there.
- eSJayBee, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4I only just now learned what "Google Street View" actually is. I thought it was just the "satellite" view in Google Maps at first and thought "Well this is total BS from these 'private property' people." After actually finding out what "Street View" is, I can see where these rich folks are coming from about the "private property" line and some guys driving on these private roads taking pictures of the private property. That said, Street View is sooo very neat. A shame I live in Canada and Street View is only going on in the US right now.
Oh...and judging by the comments about this article that I am reading on Digg as well as the source site itself: I can clearly see a lot of other people are making the same mistake I made earlier: thinking "Street View" means the "Satellite" view and thus making their opinions based on this mistake. - BRODEL, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Sure ban the town from using google at all. I'd move if I couldn't get to google (and wasn't smart enough to use a proxy).
- jazzbeaux, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3I have every expectation of privacy outside my home on my private property. Get real....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is