Comments on: Should Churches Be Blurred in Aerial Images?

By: Atheist Librarian

Atheist Librarian — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:25:10 +0000

Like Google would pay attention to anything they say anyway. Google is blatently flouting copyright law by putting most of a book up electronically on GoogleBooks. Do you really think they’ll give two fraks (damn it, now I’m saying it) about some crazies worried about churches?
Hell, they put up something like 500 miles of new street view a day, they don’t have time to go through and blur all the people let alone every third building like some downtowns are with their churches.
Not everyone is so crazy about this privacy thing. I once saw a picture from Street View of a whole line of people smiling and waving to the Google van as it sent by; they’d found out it was coming to their area and staged a mass welcome. I’d love to be part of something like that.

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:44:37 +0000

Thank you, Eliza. You’re sweet. And your comments are crystal clear.

By: Eliza

Eliza — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:22:08 +0000

Hats off, Richard Wade, for your fuzziness summary above! Well done!

By: revatheist

revatheist — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:16:11 +0000

Cypress Green:
That’s a really good idea but the sign is of the scrolling electronic variety and the entire message isn’t up all at once to get a picture. Thanks for the suggestion though!

By: CybrgnX

CybrgnX — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:15:58 +0000

Really people like him are all just plain stupid!!!!
I figured out 3 methods a terrorest could use to get the photos by the time I got to the end of the article!!!
Any terrorist not smarter then me can be led to the target without having to worry about his actions. Any terrorest smarter then me will get to the target no matter what you do to google earth..& I aint much above average smart.

By: Cypress Green

Cypress Green — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:26:27 +0000

Revatheist:
“There are no atheists in hell.”

You REALLY need to send a photo of that to the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
http://www.FFRF.org
They publish those in their monthly newspaper.

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:07:34 +0000

Ditto to Siamang.
You have the right to privacy inside your home or business. Unless you have a high wall or hedge, your home or business reflects light out to public property. You do not have the right to control the light that your building reflects beyond the boundaries of your private property. It’s free to go into the eyes or cameras of anyone on public property.

The atmosphere and space are not private property. If you don’t want your building to be seen from on high, build underground like a paranoid doomsday cult.

Or better yet, learn to stop living in fear, and find ways to make mutually beneficial peace with your enemies.

By: Siamang

Siamang — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:36:12 +0000

To my mind, photo services like the ones we’re discussing are a violation of privacy across the board, but if they’re going to exist, it seems reasonable to exclude certain types of buildings that have been targeted by terrorists in the past.

Yes, by all means, let’s remove Boston, Newark, and Washington Dulles International Airport from the maps.

That’ll have Bin Laden on the run.

Are you seriously, seriously advocating the elimination of mapping the location of churches?

“Gee mom, where’s Vatican city? Where’s the Mormon Tabernacle, where’s the Old North Church? Where’s the Crystal Cathedral? Where’s the Mission San Juan Capistrano? I don’t know!”

That’s what you call “reasonable?”

What about hiding the Pentagon under a tarp, and changing the address of the World Trade Center from “One World Trade Center” to ’302 Nowhere Street, Nothingsville New York’? Would that have stopped terrorists?

To my mind, photo services like the ones we’re discussing are a violation of privacy across the board,

Under what reading of the constitution do you come to the conclusion that churches have a right to privacy?

People do, yes. But I don’t think any court in the United States has suggested that churches enjoy a right to privacy.

All you’re advocating is the crippling of maps because of the stupid reason that a terrorist might also use a map. Let’s ban cell-phones and the internet, and airplanes while we’re at it.

Name me one time in history when a crippled map kept terrorists from attacking a public, not-military, non-secret target.

By: Stephen P

Stephen P — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:00:06 +0000

The commenters who say that terrorists could take their own photos are still missing most of the point. Which is: why on earth would terrorists need photos in the first place?

Have you ever experienced the problem of driving around a town for hours without being able to find a single church or school anywhere? Me neither.

About the only time terrorists would need (aerial) photos is for a rocket attack on something like a well-screened army installation which can’t be seen at all from the public highway.

The entire measure is stupendously pointless, churches or not.

By: littlejohn

littlejohn — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:42:26 +0000

If the terrorists really are willing to eradicate our churches, I say blur everything BUT the churches. Hell, print red circles around them.