Stop saying you are going to "Shoot it down" "Grab a shotgun" or other idiotic statements about committing a crime.


You know what these are far more likely used for? Detailed overhead images of parts of highways, parks, areas to the public interest. I highly doubt the goal of this is to get overhead images of your pool. Tho I would be glad if they sent a few to the greeks to help catch tax cheats.

It's just lucky for Kirk that planet had some seriously gnarly waves, or he never would've gotten his hands on a surfer in a million years.

I got it right! Me spill chequre is unfallible... :O:

No.

"Likely" is just not good enough. Over here the private sphere of people is protected and guaranteed by laws. Obedience to the law (in this case a protective law) is not to be left to probabilities, but it is to be controlled, systematically or in random chances or both in turns, and is to be enforced where it gets violated. Unfortunately data protection laws in the US are not wort the name, compared to our standards, and the whole country is much more uncritical to digital data security and protection of the private sphere than it is the case over here at least by theb intentions of our lawmakers and public opinion. Google effecticely is allowed to partially work in a void free of legal rules and uncomfortable control, and nobody knows what ammount of datasets they are keeping - wihtout being legitimised by an electorate to do so or given such powers by a constitutional state body or public authority.

when private business is by implication allowed more data keeping rights than our police and intelligence services, but is not bound to legal standards in forms of the laws that regulate police and intelligence, then something is wrong, and the risk for abusing such data is not something you talk of in terms of "being likely", but you can be almst sure - becaseu Google does not do this for free, but for making money. Even more worrying it becomes when considering the effect for the cultural face of our society that the systemtic and intended destruction of privacy has, as it is done and promoted byx for example social networks like Facebook. I do not know why they are called social networks. "Antisocial networks" would be matching them much better.

For the same reason several other applications by Google, including the data kraken "Chrome" and "Google Search", shouldn'T be like they are: sources of behavior information that is being combined with other data on a given user to establish hopefully complete consummation and psychologixal profiles than then can be sold around to business companies, without being bothered by any laws regulating this market.

So, if Google let'S flying drones fly around, shooting them down is probably the best you can do. Stopping the data flow by legal means, getting back data that already has been collected and saved somewhere, compares to trying to push the djinni back into the bottle.

Then if you do something as stupid as trying to shoot one down I look forward to hearing of your arrest Skybird.

I bet you would. for some people, the realm of formalities is always more important than reality. Destroying freedom or pirvatesphere is very much okay for some - if it is done with laws prohibiting to defend it.

That way, one can mess up things and erode our society from within - legally.