Picture Kill Advisory: Google Crackdown Begins!

Oh my, what don't they want us to see?

It appears to be... THE MAN!

If you back up a little and zoom in,
you can see what they have redacted:

Tags: , , , ,

26 Responses:

  1. no_brakes23 says:

    Why would they redact that?

    And what is this wonderful toy?

    I tried for a few minutes to find the escaping furniture house but gave up.

    • latemodel says:

      I tried for a few minutes to find the escaping furniture house but gave up.

      You mean this?

      • no_brakes23 says:

        That link doesn't show it for some reason. That's the general area, though. In summer '05 I took the family to SF for summer vacation. We left our hotel on Market, and on the way home, right before we got on the freeway I grabbed the camera to take a pic of the awesome graff. Then I noticed the house.

        I can't fucking remember what street it was on though.

        • bodyfour says:

          > That link doesn't show it for some reason.

          Works for me. Are you sure you have the latest version of flash installed?

          > I can't fucking remember what street it was on though.

          Exactly where that link points you — the corner of 6th St & Howard.

      • baconmonkey says:

        man, there are some serious space-time warps occuring there. Aside from sideways gravity that holds furniture to two sides of the building, buildings merging and an all-consuming black void

    • lilmissnever says:

      That would be Defenestration, which is on the corner of 6th St. and Mission. I worked on it back in 1997.

      • redshrike says:

        ...and that's the very first place i ever stayed the night as a squatter in san francisco, back in 1992, before its modification.

  2. strspn says:

    I predict this will create a huge industry of news photographers. And, maybe the lawyers at Google will have to deal with the consequences of killing the First Amendment. Hey, they get paid either way. Wasn't there a time when Google had decision makers who tried to consider the consequences of capitulation?

  3. grahams says:

    Fucking Supercuts.... They think they control EVERYTHING.

  4. ultranurd says:

    They're not very good at this censorship thing, seeing as how you can still read the squad car numbers from some remaining angles.

  5. phoenixredux says:

    Ok, so they don't want to show someone getting busted. If you were the one getting busted in these photos, you might not want it all over the Internet, either.

    Let's remember what the Internet is for. Where's the nudity? :D

    If I've learned anything from this new toy, it's that you folks in San Francisco sure do have some nice real estate. Seriously. It's a beautiful city.

    • we don't see pretty houses anymore, we just see dollar signs.

    • belgand says:

      Not where I live. Out here in the Southwest of the city it's pretty dreary and depressing with row upon row of bland, ugly, lower-middle class two-story houses crammed in against each other.

      The beauty is also tempered by the cold. It's apparently only 63 here right now. Last week the sky was a solid mass of grey for pretty much the entire week.

      • phoenixredux says:

        I live in Minnesota. People in California aren't allowed to complain to Minnesotans about the cold. :)

        What's the weather like there in January? -50F? No? Sounds like paradise to me.

        • belgand says:

          Heh. I know exactly how you feel. Every time I visited before moving here was during Winter and while I was technically aware that it was cold in the Summer I always discounted it a bit because, c'mon, the Winters were so much nicer.

          The problem is it feels like everything that went into making Winter not cold used up all the warmth of Summer. So instead it's a sort of constant, coldish Fall.

  6. jkonrath says:

    Wow, you can look right at the world's largest aboveground munitons storage area in the United States, but find a picture of some cops eating donuts and it's world war fucking three.

  7. valacosa says:

    Does this imply that cops have more of a right to privacy than the average person? I find that implication frightening.

    • dglenn says:

      Oddly enough, IIRC (caveat: IANAL), cops on duty have less right to privacy than private citizens. As I recall, the key concept is "public servant engaged in his or her duties as a public servant, in public".

      On private property not visible from public property, the property owner or lessee can set rule about photography. A private citizen in public, or visible to a photographer who is not trespassing (there's something in there about not using spy-tech, but I'm not sure where birdwatching lenses stop and spy lenses start) can be photographed, but if they're identifiable/recognizeable then the photo can't be published without their consent unless it's "news" (i.e. the publisher can make a reasonable case that their use of the photo somehow constitutes news reporting -- and ISTR there being something about celebrities' always being news). But public servants on-the-job are, I think, not covered by the requirement for consent or "being news".

      Thing is, are cops eating donuts "engaged in their duties as public servants"? Are they so engaged whenever they're on-shift? Whenever they're in uniform in public? Or not when they're on a break, donut-break or otherwise? I don't know. (And that's assuming I've gotten everything before this paragraph correct to begin with.)

      Of course, a photographers legal rights and what the police (and others) will try to limit them to, especially post-9/11, are sometimes very different things. And I've noticed that some police officers seem to really not like having cameras pointed at them even when I've clearly got the right to do so and they're not doing anything that could embarass them.

      Note also that amateur photographers (and, I suspect, some pros) who self-publish on the web often ignore the consent requirement for non-news photos of private individuals -- you're supposed to get a model-release (a short contract granting permission to publish) from each identifiable person in a non-news photo before you publish it. In practice, a lot of people just stick photos on the web without a release, a) out of ignorance, b) playing the odds and hoping the subject either doesn't notice or doesn't bother to sue, or c) hoping that a subject who objects will simply ask that the photo be removed first and not sue if the photographer nicely complies.

      Double-check me on all of this; it's been a while since I read up on it and I may have misremembered some details.