The Taxman's Watching You — on Google Earth

[Throckmorton]

Working for an engineering consulting firm, I can guarantee you google earth is being used for more then just spotting illegal pools. We use it constantly for mapping stuff ect.

What kind of engineering consulting firm doesn't use GIS for mapping?

 

[Amused]

As for thermal imaging, it HAS been decided by the courts that it IS an unlawful search.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html

Just because technology can see something, does not make it in "plain view."

In this case the decision discusses human flight and it's invasion of privacy, unfortunately it also shows case law in which past courts have not found it to be an unreasonable search. A travesty if you ask me.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=476&invol=207

So while my opinion goes against that of the USSC, I stand by it. Flying over private property should not be considered in "Plain Sight."

 

[Darwin333]

This is the same view you have riding in a plane or standing on high point in the region. I don't see how there's an expection of privacy.

You don't see how I have a reasonable expectation of privacy while I am in my own backyard surrounded by a privacy fence?

If that is truly your stance then I assume you do not think we EVER have a reasonable expectation of privacy? There will always be a "gotcha" or new technology that comes along and makes what was once hard to obtain easy. I keep going back to seeing into your living room, I would appreciate an answer to the question, if the technology was easily mountable to a plane would your expectation of privacy in your living room or bedroom simply vanish because it could be seen with the use of technology?

Flying in a commercial airliner 10's of thousands of feet in the air and standing on a mountain are not comparable to low flying planes with extremely high powered cameras. That is like comparing the Hubble to my cheap ass binoculars.

 

[Brainonska511]

As for thermal imaging, it HAS been decided by the courts that it IS an unlawful search.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html

Just because technology can see something, does not make it in "plain view."

Okay, but we're not talking about thermal imaging here. We're talking about a glorified way to look over someone's fence to get a better idea of the assessment value of their home.

 

[Throckmorton]

You don't see how I have a reasonable expectation of privacy while I am in my own backyard surrounded by a privacy fence?

If that is truly your stance then I assume you do not think we EVER have a reasonable expectation of privacy? There will always be a "gotcha" or new technology that comes along and makes what was once hard to obtain easy. I keep going back to seeing into your living room, I would appreciate an answer to the question, if the technology was easily mountable to a plane would your expectation of privacy in your living room or bedroom simply vanish because it could be seen with the use of technology?

Flying in a commercial airliner 10's of thousands of feet in the air and standing on a mountain are not comparable to low flying planes with extremely high powered cameras. That is like comparing the Hubble to my cheap ass binoculars.

But this isn't anything at all like thermal imaging. It's not looking through a wall where you have an expectation of privacy. It's looking at your yard from a point higher than your yard. Your neighbors have the same view.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Because it WASN'T in plain sight until Googlemaps published it...

...except to any joker with a Piper Cub or an ultralight.

Or a trampoline next door...

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Flying in a commercial airliner 10's of thousands of feet in the air and standing on a mountain are not comparable to low flying planes with extremely high powered cameras. That is like comparing the Hubble to my cheap ass binoculars.

What about a medium altitude aircraft and naked eyes? You must not fly much if you don't know how visible things are outdoors - especially something as immense as a swimming pool.

 

[Amused]

...except to any joker with a Piper Cub or an ultralight.

Or a trampoline next door...

The rules of evidence define "in plain sight" as that which can be seen taking no extrordinary measures. If a government employee has to fly, or bounce on a trampoline to see what is otherwise unseeable on private property, I consider that extrodinary and intrusive. Every bit as much as thermal imaging. Why? Because they had to use technology to accomplish the search that otherwise would not be legal.

 

[Cogman]

What kind of engineering consulting firm doesn't use GIS for mapping?

We do have other software besides google earth. However, google earth is VERY convenient in a lot of ways, quick measurements, fast location finding, ect. It works surprisingly well.

(The firm in question specializes mainly in acquiring RUS loans for small telephone companies. Generally, we will use google earth for a quick method of determining ROW.)

 

[Darwin333]

What about a medium altitude aircraft and naked eyes? You must not fly much if you don't know how visible things are outdoors - especially something as immense as a swimming pool.

Are you seriously equating a piper club and naked eyes with satellites and extremely high powered cameras? Then you can throw in the entire "intent" thing.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Are you seriously equating a piper club and naked eyes with satellites and extremely high powered cameras? Then you can throw in the entire "intent" thing.

If it's a matter of expectation of privacy, I can cede the point. It's not a valid comparison at all.

You see a lot more from a small aircraft than you do from GoogleMaps satellite view.

 

[Zebo]

The rules of evidence define "in plain sight" as that which can be seen taking no extrordinary measures. If a government employee has to fly, or bounce on a trampoline to see what is otherwise unseeable on private property, I consider that extrodinary and intrusive. Every bit as much as thermal imaging. Why? Because they had to use technology to accomplish the search that otherwise would not be legal.

This.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Amused

You prove to me that the pools are not visible from the neighbor's 2nd story window before you claim that they are not in plain view.

 

[Amused]

Amused

You prove to me that the pools are not visible from the neighbor's 2nd story window before you claim that they are not in plain view.

If the police have to enter the property next door to you to conduct a search of your house, that would not be "in plain sight." What would be their probable cause?

What your neighbor can see and what the police can see are irrelevant to each other.

And, finally, if I build a privacy fence, and have no two story neighboring houses, your point is rather pointless to begin with. I would have an expectation of privacy if no one has a line of sight into my property.

 

[DrPizza]

Let's look at it this way... Suppose on the first really nice sunny day of the year, I get an ultralight (or something that can legally fly at low altitude relatively silently) and manage to take pictures of your wife, or legal age daughter sunbathing topless in the back yard that's completely fenced in with a privacy fence so that the neighbors cannot see in.

Under those circumstances, if I decided to publish those photos (in a non-commercial manner), I think just about everyone would be screaming "Invasion of Privacy! Invasion of Privacy!"

I rule in Amused's favor.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Anyone stopped to consider that as soon as you would argue in court that the fence around your pool is not a safety feature, but designed to conceal the pool, and if the pool has been illegally constructed, constructing the fence could be legally seen as an act of concealing a crime and worthy of additional charges?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Another thought about aerial observation. I have yet to hear any complaints about invasion of privacy when planes and choppers are used to spot weed growing somewhere, even when attempts are made to conceal it.

 

[Hacp]

Let's look at it this way... Suppose on the first really nice sunny day of the year, I get an ultralight (or something that can legally fly at low altitude relatively silently) and manage to take pictures of your wife, or legal age daughter sunbathing topless in the back yard that's completely fenced in with a privacy fence so that the neighbors cannot see in.

Under those circumstances, if I decided to publish those photos (in a non-commercial manner), I think just about everyone would be screaming "Invasion of Privacy! Invasion of Privacy!"

I rule in Amused's favor.

How can I obtain one of your magic ultralight devices?

 

[Amused]

Another thought about aerial observation. I have yet to hear any complaints about invasion of privacy when planes and choppers are used to spot weed growing somewhere, even when attempts are made to conceal it.

The case history I posted BOTH had to do with drugs. So yes, I am complaining. But maybe, just maybe you didn't hear about drug cases in this thread otherwise, was because this has nothing to do with drugs, and everything to do with the 4th Amendment.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Looking back, I will concede that you objected to aerial observation. It also seems to have been settled in the courts. I find the court ruling completely reasonable.

 

[Vette73]

The case history I posted BOTH had to do with drugs. So yes, I am complaining. But maybe, just maybe you didn't hear about drug cases in this thread otherwise, was because this has nothing to do with drugs, and everything to do with the 4th Amendment.

HaHa… still trying to turn another one of your BS threads around are we.

Heres a hint, this is not a criminal issue. So those cases you linked to have nothing to do with this.
And in those cases the police were the ones looking by airplane. In these cases all the city did was use public images that anybody can see. They have not been charged with a crime, but being told to pay the same fees/taxs that all other honest people do.

Wow more fail threads and more fail BS from Amused. Thanks for the laughs. :awe:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Okay, but we're not talking about thermal imaging here. We're talking about a glorified way to look over someone's fence to get a better idea of the assessment value of their home.

Yup.

Major logical Fail comparing thermal imaging to Google Earth.

We do have other software besides google earth. However, google earth is VERY convenient in a lot of ways, quick measurements, fast location finding, ect. It works surprisingly well.

(The firm in question specializes mainly in acquiring RUS loans for small telephone companies. Generally, we will use google earth for a quick method of determining ROW.)

Beats the crap out of the old 'windshield surveys', digging into hard-copy tax maps, pulling deeds and whipping out the old $1k planimeter for measurements, don't it ? LOL





--

 

[gingermeggs]

Wow. It's finally 1984 I guess...

Backyard Scofflaws Found on Earth -- Google Earth

Published August 02, 2010
| Associated Press


Google Earth is now being used to track down criminals, at least in one small town on Long Island.

RIVERHEAD, N.Y. -- A town on New York's Long Island is using Google Earth to find backyard pools that don't have the proper permits.

The town of Riverhead has used the satellite image service to find about 250 pools whose owners never filled out the required paperwork.

Violators were told to get the permits or face hefty fines. So far about $75,000 in fees has been collected.

Riverhead's chief building inspector Leroy Barnes Jr. said the unpermitted pools were a safety concern. He said that without the required inspections there was no way to know whether the pools' plumbing, electrical work and fencing met state and local regulations.

"Pool safety has always been my concern," Barnes said.

But some privacy advocates say the use of Google Earth to find scofflaw swimming pools reeks of Big Brother.

Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said Google Earth was promoted as an aid to curious travelers but has become a tool for cash-hungry local governments.

Yes lets cry for the people that can afford a pool but would try to dodge the fees on it!
Poor cunts!

 

[Darwin333]

If it's a matter of expectation of privacy, I can cede the point. It's not a valid comparison at all.

You see a lot more from a small aircraft than you do from GoogleMaps satellite view.

Absolutely, as I stated earlier in the thread there are services available that are very similar to Google Earth except the images were taken from small low flying aircraft with high powered cameras. The images are MUCH better and most places have 6-7 "historical" pictures that you can view. Cities are often updated once a year and sometimes sooner so I could tell you what year you built the pool with one of those services. The photos are so high-res that they have to intentionally reduce the resolution when you zoom in for "privacy" reasons, at least to the public.

We still get back to the main point though, is it your argument that the 4th amendment is simply limited to the current technology? Should the government be able to follow you around with one of their "spy satellites" without a warrant? Or using the small plane example, how about a flying drone following your every movement? If you leave your bedroom window open, because your privacy fence obstructs anyone from being able to see inside of it, but that drone (it doesn't have to look straight down like a satellite, thats one of the things that make the aerial photos so much better) can easily use its high powered cameras to see inside of it do you have no expectation of privacy? Should the .gov be able to arrest you for getting a BJ (illegal in lots of states) that they saw using advanced technology from a flying drone without a warrant?

If you truly think that the 4th amendment should be limited simply by technology then whats the point of having it at all?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Efforts to create some level of privacy that are incomplete or ineffective don't get extra points.

Example: If you are walking with someone and lower your voice to say something and are still overheard by a 3rd party, the fact that you had lowered your voice does not mean that the conversation was private under the law, regardless of your expectations.

The same thing applies to the pools. Building a fence did not prevent observation by simply being at a higher elevation than ground level, which could have been achieved through any number of means, many not even involving tech.