Comments on: Minnesota town tells Google Maps to get lost

Private city tells the Internet search giant that no trespassing means no trespassing. City images are shortly thereafter removed from its Street View service.

[k0balt]

the greatest trick of the devil is proving he doesnt exist

google is evil funded by cia money to make 1984 data

[jackdaniels08]

Google follows the law. Google has a right to photograph from a public area or Google privately owned ground of origin, that is the camera itself photographs from a public point of origin or public grounds or public street or Google privately owned area of origin pointed at a source that is PUBLIC or PRIVATE . By law, if I am standing on a cliff that is publicly owned or if I am standing on my privately owned grounds and overlooks private backyards, I can legally zoom in close into a bedroom window with a 1000mm lens and take the photograph and post it on the internet if I wish.

[JCPayne]

techforward Makes me laught...

There is no such thing as privacy anymore...... If you have utilities from a cable company guess what? They know every single TV program you watch (if their boxes have things like Neilson ratings inside.) If you have phone services from them, they know everybody you call, if you have Internet from them they know every single website you visit since your Internet passes through their webservers. (AT&T already told their customers that such formerly private information becomes their property).

If you have Credit Cards your banks/credit card companies know every spot you frequent... They know everywhere you shop and spend money and every restaurant you frequent. If you have credit in America take a look at your credit report almost any financial company can get a copy of it and from that they can see and legal judgements you have against you... they can see any credit card companies/financial institutions you have ties to. they can see your address and where you work........ There is no such thing as privacy... Every time you order from one of those infomercials on TV with the blue background and a PO Box those companies compile any information you give them and sell that to the highest bidder.... Any body now a days through the Freedom of Information Act can get copies of your tax returns.... Give it up there is no more privacy anymore.

[JCPayne]

CORRECTION: techforward Makes me laugh...

There is no such thing as privacy anymore...... If you have utilities
from a cable company guess what? They know every single TV program
you watch (if their boxes have things like Nielsen ratings inside.) If
you have phone services from them, they know everybody you call, if
you have Internet from them they know every single website you visit
since your Internet passes through their web servers. (AT&T already
told their customers that such formerly private information becomes
their property).

If you have Credit Cards your banks/credit card companies know every
spot you frequent... They know everywhere you shop and spend money
and every restaurant you frequent. If you have credit in America take
a look at your credit report almost any financial company can get a
copy of it and from that they can see and legal judgement you have
against you... They can see any credit card companies/financial
institutions you have ties to. they can see your address and where
you work........ There is no such thing as privacy... Every time you
order from one of those infomercials on TV with the *blue screen*
background and a PO Box those companies compile bits and pieces of
information which you give them and they sell that to the highest
bidder.... Anybody now-a--days through the Freedom of Information Act
can get copies of your tax returns.... Give it up, there is no
privacy anymore.

[JCPayne]

techforward Makes me laugh...

There is no such thing as privacy anymore...... If you have utilities
from a cable company guess what? They know every single TV program
you watch (if their boxes have things like Nielsen ratings inside.) If
you have phone services from them, they know everybody you call, if
you have Internet from them they know every single website you visit
since your Internet passes through their web servers. (AT&T already
told their customers that such formerly private information becomes
their property).

If you have Credit Cards your banks/credit card companies know every
spot you frequent... They know everywhere you shop and spend money
and every restaurant you frequent. If you have credit in America take
a look at your credit report almost any financial company can get a
copy of it and from that they can see and legal judgement you have
against you... They can see any credit card companies/financial
institutions you have ties to. they can see your address and where
you work........ There is no such thing as privacy... Every time you
order from one of those infomercials on TV with the *blue screen*
background and a PO Box those companies compile bits and pieces of
information which you give them and they sell that to the highest
bidder.... Anybody now-a--days through the Freedom of Information Act
can get copies of your tax returns.... Give it up, there is no
privacy anymore.

[unknown_user]

Calling North Oaks a "town" is a little misleading. It's more of an oversized, private, secured, gated community for the very rich , located in the inner suburbs. Since their property is private and secured, I think they have a right to keep people out. However, I think the real fault is with whatever guard or other security lapse let the Google camera vehicle in, not Google. From what I've seen, their vehicle is pretty hard to miss; it's not like they snuck in. So they ask Google to take them out and Google complies. I think this is exactly as the system is meant to work. Nobody's at fault except for the security people or whoever didn't give them clear instructions on how to handle such cases. Satellite images are another matter...

[Matthew_Maurice]

Love Google, hate Google-BFD! What freaks me out is that there's a city that's entirely private property. How does is that possible? It seems to me that a bunch of people have figured out a nice way to keep anyone they don't like out of their town. Basically anyone who doesn't live, or get invited, there can't go there. That's fine for a "gated community" but seems to violate the idea of municipality.

[amarkj]

Matthew_Maurice - they're private gate community basically and I'm sure all the land is private and not public. Nothing freaky about it. If you owned say a 500 acre ranch with a bunch of buildings and roads on it would you like strangers driving all over your place taking photos just because they want to? I think it all worked out as Google took down the images. Their driver of the google maps vehicle probably saw the signs at this private community and thought he could get away with going in there and taking photos and this community probably doesn't have CIA security agents working for them to keep out strangers lol.

[vanwahlgren]

Bravo! Touche!

[Travis Ernst]

They tried this stunt on a military base the other month, I think it was at Bragg. Back to the one posters comment about trying arial shots, According to FAA law, in Class C or D airspace, or farther out in "uncontrolled" you are REQUIRED (stressed) to be 500 feet ABOVE "any man made object". In residential areas this changes. I'm of course going by Fixed Wing regs. In areas that have malls, churches, hotels (places known to contain numbers of people) you are REQUIRED to be at a mandatory minimum of 1500 ft ABOVE the structure. Choppers this reg does NOT apply.

Inside controlled airspace of MSP you are ASSIGNED to an elevation inside of Bravo ring due to all the air traffic (MSP, both St Paul fields, Lake Elmo, Anoka, Crystal) in the region.

However there is a HUGE difference between pictures taken from the air and ground level pictures. The angle is downward and often obscured from the air. Street level you have a clear line of sight picture. Thats why some people don't care for Google Street Level.

[partytildawn-20159620461052270]

The town actually has one real legal problem: the federal courts have already RULED that the streets of a closed community such as North Oaks must treat their streets like all other public streets in America even if they are privately owned IF the community is actually incorporated as a town. North Oaks meets this requirement, therefore Google was acting within the guidelines of the law. If North Oaks doesn't like it, then the town of North Oaks needs to unincorporate as a public entity.

[Renegade Knight]

If it's private, it's not a city.
If it's a city, it's public.

[shmooth2]

Microsoft's maps show a nice bird's eye view.

Yeah - that whole 'private roads' thing is just some nonsensical Ayn Rand stuff. Losers.

If you look at the photo you'll see CR-96 which means County Road 96 which is a public road. If I was Google, I would go back, drive down CR-96 and take the picture again, at that point I would tell North Oaks, get over it the picture was taken from a public road. See ya in court. tough!

[neighbor31]

As a neighbor of the town North Oaks who drives by it every day, it is a private community whose entrance is off of County Road 96 (which IS a public road). Directly east of the stoplight shown is where North Oaks' land starts and is private property. Honestly, the roads in there are highly twisty and turny and unless you know how to navigate, not even googlemaps will help you get through there. All the meetings I've had to go to hosted by residents of the community scared me because I thought I would never be able to get out. One wrong turn and you're screwed! The people always give me great directions, though. Luckily. With that said, this is just plain silly and falls right into the stigma/stereotype that those of us believe about folks that live in North Oaks.

[drukenhard]

It seems Google was being nice when they pulled the photos.

I'm not quite sure what the requirements to charge for trespassing in the US but in Australia you must be asked to leave the property by someone who owns it or controls it and YOU MUST REFUSE TO LEAVE!!!

Did Google even take the photos or were they submitted to Google by other people?
If others took them then that means that Google never did trespass......even if they hovered low in a helicopter and took them they did not trespass!

It seems like yet another case of America pioneering the world's plummet into utter stupidity.

**** you North Oaks, and every idiot that lives there (or supports them)

[WDS2]

Trespass laws in the US are different depending on what state you live in. In Minnesota a landowner basically has to put up a NO TRESPASSING sign and that's it.

[Ischyros]

Google uses a car with a specially built 360 degree camera on top that drives down the road taking pictures ever few seconds. I can't remember exactly how often the pictures are taken. I'm sure if you do a search online you can find images from Google's street view where the car is reflected in windows and such. I know I've seen those pictures of it.

[Mapper99]

Totally crazy idea. If they don't like the pictures, get them removed. There are a whole pile of Google Street Views that have been censored already:

http://streetviewgallery.corank.com

[Manhattan2]

Time is critical. The power of these images is enormous. 4Dplanet understands that better than any company in the world. Even Google. Microsoft and Google are decades behind our work. The data is there. Only time will tell. The good outweighs the bad.
by Mitch G.

[krosavcheg]

First and foremost, this is about following the rules. It is a private road which requires permission. Period. Photos taken from a public vantage point are indeed public. However, this is not the case. So for most of you just here to "write" and not think, you need to re-read the article. Secondly, I can hear the tone of jealousy for those that are concerned about the "private, gated community" for the rich. Guess what, just like you have the choice by means to live in the 'hood, you also have a choice to move out of it. Save the economic excuses because it doesn't hold water. Additionally. if you had a choice to live in a gated community where everyone wanted to be with like people (safe, hard working, etc) then you sure as hell would. Save the hypocrisy for church, where it belongs.

[MTGrizzly]

>The way I see it: So if it's such a big issue, what are you trying to hide? It's not like they're showing something I can't just drive over and see...

>Just another bunch of rick folks who think their you know what doesn't stink and think they're entitled to everything. Just like the ones in Washington. It doesn't get any clearer. And like the other poster said, what are they trying to hide? Do they cover their license plates as they drive down the road out of "privacy"? Idiots

Why do you immediately come to the conclusion that wanting privacy means wanting to hide something criminal? By being wealthy, do you think they forfeit their rights to privacy?

If *you,* yourself believe that no one should want/need to have their privacy, have you marched down to the local cop shop and given them all your personal/biometric/property information? Do you lock your doors? Close your windows? Wear shirts with your name, address, et cetera on them for everyone to see? If not, why not? Could it be that you want to maintain some personal privacy. The same privacy you think the residents of North Oaks, a private gated community, do not deserve?

>PRIVATE roads mean privately maintained roads, and NOT private property. Big big difference.

No, private roads means privately owned roads. Who maintains them is immaterial. The article clearly states that the roads are part of DEEDED private property. Look on North Oaks website, it says there is no city owned property in North Oaks.

>Google's images do not inherently invade your privacy, because in order to cull useful information from the photos, you need additional context. You need to know that Joe Shmoe lives at a specific address in order to determine that he's got an olympic-sized pool that he never properly received a building permit for. Or that Joe Shmoe was lying when in divorce filings, he said he was broke, even though you can clearly see his new 2,000 sf addition on his home, which again, wasn't properly permitted.

All one needs to do to find out who lives where is to go to the county clerk's office and find out the name of the person that owns it. Often, this is computerized and you can do it from the privacy of your own home via the Internet.

How can one determine whether one was honest in his divorce settlement by knowing they have a new addition to their house? Have you ever heard of a loan?

>If certain information wasn't public, you'd never be able to determine whether or not you were paying too much for your house, or that house you were looking at buying had the proper permits going forward, for which you'd be legally responsible for. And you wouldn't be able to verify if that lovely fiance of yours wasn't lying when he/she said that he/she was never married (or divorced).

What does this have to do with Google driving around with truck mounted cameras? This isn't the kind of information one gets off of Google...

>I am standing on my privately owned grounds and overlooks private backyards, I can legally zoom in close into a bedroom window with a 1000mm lens and take the photograph and post it on the internet if I wish.

Yep, and you can be sued for the damages incurred by your actions. If what you are doing is illegal, you, also can be thrown in the clink - the clink that is willingly supported by the taxes paid by you and your fellow taxpayers. You do have a legal right to privacy...

>Love Google, hate Google-BFD! What freaks me out is that there's a city that's entirely private property. How does is that possible? It seems to me that a bunch of people have figured out a nice way to keep anyone they don't like out of their town. Basically anyone who doesn't live, or get invited, there can't go there. That's fine for a "gated community" but seems to violate the idea of municipality.

"municipality" - according to Dictionary.com - is a city, town, or other district possessing corporate existence and usually its own local government. There is no requirement that a municipality "own" any property. This is entirely different than than people who buy a piece of property, sell it to different owners and keep other residents out. Discrimination in housing is only illegal if it involves federal or state subsidies. If you own your property, *you* get to choose which people you sell it to. Yeah, so it is a "nice way to keep anyone that they don't like out of their town." Discriminating against a person because they cannot afford to live there is legal...

>If it's private, it's not a city. If it's a city, it's public.

You base this statement on what?

>charge for trespassing in the US but in Australia you must be asked to leave the property by someone who owns it or controls it and YOU MUST REFUSE TO LEAVE!!!

If the property is posted with "No Trespassing" signs, you can't trespass. Any entry onto the property is, legally, trespass. If the property isn't posted, you get one shot - when they catch you, you have to leave and never come back, (how they can "ban" people from commercial establishments). It is, essentially, the same as trespass law in, at least, New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT. I don't know about the Northern Territory, South Australia, Western Australia or Victoria, as I never lived in these states.

[kisstibor]

Very interesting approach to private property!

Until the majority is taxed to build streets, some are building their "closed property streets".
Very important question it is that until they built their closed property streets, if they were able to reduce the participation on building (funding) public streets? If so, then a fair principle would be that from now on the "public" to be considered just another community, which has the same property rights, as they have to. Then the "public" property rights should be claimed to negociate with "them" to be able to use the property outside their "closed property streets". The prices would be determined by the market. If they would like to travel out outside from the closed property streets, should pay the price for it. The price cannot be too high, because if they cannot afford to pay, they would stay home, until the price is getting lower which can afford.

That is the fair logic, what they are using too!
But I don't know if it would work.

-- written by somebody, descendent of an ancient civilisation --

[kisstibor]

Very interesting approach to private property!

Until the majority is taxed to build streets, some are building their "closed property streets".
Very important question it is that until they built their closed property streets, if they were able to reduce the participation on building (funding) public streets? If so, then a fair principle would be that from now on the "public" to be considered just another community, which has the same property rights, as they have to. Then the "public" property rights should be claimed to negociate with "them" to be able to use the property outside their "closed property streets". The prices would be determined by the market. If they would like to travel out outside from the closed property streets, should pay the price for it. The price cannot be too high, because if they cannot afford to pay, they would stay home, until the price is getting lower which can afford.

That is the fair logic, what they are using too!
But I don't know if it would work.

-- written by somebody, descendent of an ancient civilisation --