Private vs pubic shutter control

June 18, 2005 12:18 PM

The ongoing battle on shutter control continues between military, commercial and non-profit NGO entities, just as Google Maps finishes adding the rest of the world to its site (even if the detail is lacking). And when Israel restricts the rest of the satellite imagery companies to 2-metre resolution, for whatever reason, should the rest of us expect the same level of privacy as commercial and military satellites continue on an exponential path to greater resolutions?
posted by Rothko (19 comments total)

Huzzah, Google now recognizes that the rest of the world exists, not just North America and Britain floating in a big ocean, as the map showed before.

Too bad it doesn't recognize cities in those new countries, though. Hopefully, that will come in time...

It's missing Vatican City, though.
posted by Asparagirl at 12:30 PM on June 18, 2005

Where can I get one of these pubic shutter controls?
posted by ladd at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2005

I think the problem is that we are redefining privacy. It's always been a given that there is no right to privacy in public places -- now, all of a sudden, everyplace is public. At least from the sky.

There are certainly legitimate security concerns about having military bases, corporate development centers and the like being subject to public scrutiny. However, how does one determine what is truly important -- say, unit dispersement in a war zone -- and what is simply hidden for the sake of being hidden -- say, a nasty strip mine in West Virginia?
posted by cedar at 1:17 PM on June 18, 2005

Are the Jews developing a weapon to destroy civilization again? I read all about it in the Protocols.
posted by ori at 1:38 PM on June 18, 2005

Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitism again?
posted by Rothko at 2:12 PM on June 18, 2005

No, there's no right to privacy. And satellites filming your nasty hairdo is probably not the biggest cause for concern.

Just try to keep a low profile and don't do anything wrong. I don't know, why we had to settle on those guiding principles, but there it is.
posted by nervousfritz at 2:56 PM on June 18, 2005

As long as they can't make out marijuana leaves I'm not sure it's really a big deal.
posted by delmoi at 5:57 PM on June 18, 2005

No, there's no right to privacy.

I wonder where you get this erroneous idea.
posted by oaf at 7:33 PM on June 18, 2005

My colleagues have been searching for such a right -- in constitutional documents, in international treaties and conventions... so far, nada.
posted by dreamsign at 8:00 PM on June 18, 2005

Wait a minute, rights have to be documented before they exist? I wonder where you get this erroneous idea.
posted by dhartung at 8:20 PM on June 18, 2005

Rothko: Criticism of Israel is not in and of itself anti-semitism, but criticisms of Israel are are often cover for anti-semitism. It depends on the context.
posted by Justinian at 10:21 PM on June 18, 2005

Criticism of Israel is not in and of itself anti-semitism, but criticisms of Israel are are often cover for anti-semitism.

Of course they are. Sit down here, and I'll make you a nice cup of tea.
posted by Jimbob at 10:46 PM on June 18, 2005

Well, you certainly refuted me. Are you seriously going to argue that, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia's criticism's of Israel are not cover for anti-semitism?
posted by Justinian at 11:04 PM on June 18, 2005

Are you seriously going to argue that, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia's criticism's of Israel are not cover for anti-semitism?

Criticism of Syria and Saudi Arabia is not in and of itself anti-Arab, but criticisms of Syria and Saudi Arabia are are often cover for anti-Arab sentiment. It depends on the context.
posted by rafter at 11:42 PM on June 18, 2005

and criticism of belgium is typical luxembourgian walloniophobia
posted by quarsan at 4:56 AM on June 19, 2005

".....there is no right to privacy in public places..."
Ok then, just one question. Is my back yard a public place? Is yours?
posted by dabitch at 9:57 AM on June 19, 2005

Rothko: Criticism of Israel is not in and of itself anti-semitism, but criticisms of Israel are are often cover for anti-semitism. It depends on the context.

Is the context here anti-Semitic? I was not aware criticism of Israel's satellite secrecy was grounds for being called a Nazi, and the person who made that comment did not qualify it. That's pretty cowardly.
posted by Rothko at 12:00 PM on June 19, 2005

Wait a minute, rights have to be documented before they exist? I wonder where you get this erroneous idea.

A positivist conception of law. You might want to look into it.

One gets enforceable rights from those "documents". One might have thought that Charter rights were innate before the Charter. Many were a part of the Cdn Bill of Rights for example, but that was only enforceable against the federal government. "But they're rights!" Try that line against the provinces in 1980 and see where it gets you.

International law varies from this only in respect to jus cogens, but that's another beast entirely.

So yes, legal scholars "look" for evidence of enforeable rights -- and so far have found nothing for privacy.
posted by dreamsign at 6:23 AM on June 20, 2005

You might want to look into it.

Don't be so fucking snotty. Those of us who believe people have inalienable rights regardless of what people with guns and documents might think don't need to be told to "look into" anything, we need to have our rights respected. If you choose to believe in guns and documents as necessary preconditions for your rights, that's your lookout, but don't assume the rest of us disagree simply because we haven't thought about it sufficiently.

And it's really tiresome to have every criticism of Israel greeted with veiled hints that the critic might be anti-Semitic. "Not calling anyone an anti-Semite, oh no! It all depends on context, you see! Just mentioning the possibility, because it has to be constantly kept in mind that someone who criticizes Israel might be an anti-Semite! But nothing personal, please don't get upset!"
posted by languagehat at 6:42 AM on June 20, 2005