Lol, I found the story. It seems that she was influenced by the writings of Anwar al-Awlaki, and had nothing to do with three months of videos.
Ironically enough, right below it was a story about a different person who also stabbed an MP, also in his surgery. Seems he blamed the MP for his unemployed state. Should we ban the news as well as the terror videos, since the news led him to believe that it was his MP's fault?
Oh, wait. Maybe we should ban the news and the books, since the books were the source of her radicalization?
So we should allow them to publicly upload those videos so we can track them, not tell them to take them down so we can't track them.
In addition, have you turned on a television set lately? It's all propaganda. Tea Party or terrorism, it's all junk, and you can't get rid of some without getting rid of all.
In other words, speech you don't like is still free speech.
In this case, there are plenty of 'gun shops' and plenty of 'normal routes', so what's the next? In addition, one crazy unproven story isn't a good enough reason to ban all video of this nature from one video service.
I understand that you think this will happen repeatedly, but everyone else says that you're wrong. (Honestly, I doubt that it ever happened the way that you lay it out.)
According to the National Counter Terrorism Center, many terrorists come from middle-class backgrounds and have university-level educations. In other words, educated radicals are perfectly normal, not surprising.
In addition, the NCTC also states that there are no visible outward signs of radicalization so how would anyone know how long it took?
An MI5 report, Understanding Radicalisation and Violent Extremism in the UK, publicized by The Guardian, emphasized that there are many diverse possible routes that can lead to an individual being radicalized, so yanking a few videos isn't going to address the issue.
As for your assertion that people are in danger from watching videos, the British MI5, in a report about radicalism in the UK, said that people 'do not become radicalised simply through passive browsing of extremist websites'.
They also noted that while it's 'popular to assume that -people who become terrorists are passively 'brainwashed' into extremism, individuals in fact make active choices to become and remain in extremist activity'.
In other words, you're wrong. Have a nice day, though. :)
I was able to blur my home in the US over a year ago. In fact, if you try to use Street View to move to it, it slides past, to the next house, which is kinda nice. :)
In light of that, I wonder how much of a 'requirement' it really was. Maybe the German government went, 'Hey, we don't like this!' and Google went, 'Okay, tell you what you can do...'.
The post says 'required Google to agree', not 'ordered Google to comply', which leaves alot of room for doubt about Google's implied reluctance. In fact, I read a different article that quoted German authorities being surprised at Google's opt-out program. (That's here, by the way.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm a blurrer right here in the US.
I guess you missed the parts where it said 'I'm a blurrer right here in the US.' and 'for more than a year'. Meh. It happens. :P
Actually, in light of this option being available in a different country for such a long period of time, I wonder how much of a 'requirement' it really was. Maybe the German government went, 'Hey, we don't like this!' and Google went, 'Okay, tell you what you can do...'.
The post says 'required Google to agree', not 'ordered Google to comply', which leaves alot of room for doubt about Google's implied reluctance. In fact, I read a different article that quoted German authorities being surprised at Google's opt-out program. (That's here, by the way.)
As for your irkedness (Is that a word?), you're welcome to come take a photo of my home whenever you like. I don't even have a fence in front (Stupid city ordinances...) so you'd be able to see it just fine, with no blurriness at all. :)
Re: Re: Re: Other's reasons are not for *you* to judge.
I wasn't speaking of rights. I was speaking of smart moves on Google's part. Allowing this in the US was a smart move on Google's part, as I have outlined below. :)
All meetings with federal officials should be subject to some sort of Open Meetings protocol (like the Sunshine Act), where their words and actions can be reviewed later by the public.
You know, the public that's paying them to attend these meetings.
That's incorrect. Items are priced a few cents below the next dollar to create the perception that the items are less expensive than they actually are.
Yes, it is a good reason. If I'm not comfortable with how Google handles the information that I see as mine, no matter how irrational that premise might be, then I'm not going to user Google's services.
In addition, only a tiny fraction of people are going to take advantage of this option, but a large percentage of people are likely to be comforted by the availability alone, making this option a good choice for Google.
At no point did I state that Google did not have the right to take a picture or video of my home. I simply stated that my comfort is a good reason for Google to choose to offer a way to opt-out of that service.
My home has been blurred for more than a year, and you can't do directly to it on Street View. If you try and stop in front of it, it skips to the next house.
Is there a good reason for it? Yes, it makes me more comfortable.
I saw this on the Consumerist site, and it's chock-full of people just like me who wouldn't get the movie until two or three months after its release anyway, because we're too busy watching the awesome streaming to bother to use the discs...
If they choose to delay the availability of new releases by 28 more days in exchange for greater streaming access to Warner's catalog, I'm all for it.
Actually, most of the GGW parties on are private property and are very clearly GGW areas. They have signs and all kinds of crap up. Judges have ruled that you can't go to this private party, drink, show your boobs, and then stop the presses (so to speak) later. And I'm good with that, personally.
I feel sorry for their embarrassment, but you can't say no AFTER the fact.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Sometimes I wonder about .....
/sadface
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Put this in context...
Ironically enough, right below it was a story about a different person who also stabbed an MP, also in his surgery. Seems he blamed the MP for his unemployed state. Should we ban the news as well as the terror videos, since the news led him to believe that it was his MP's fault?
Oh, wait. Maybe we should ban the news and the books, since the books were the source of her radicalization?
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: It's not about safety
In addition, have you turned on a television set lately? It's all propaganda. Tea Party or terrorism, it's all junk, and you can't get rid of some without getting rid of all.
In other words, speech you don't like is still free speech.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Put this in context...
In this case, there are plenty of 'gun shops' and plenty of 'normal routes', so what's the next? In addition, one crazy unproven story isn't a good enough reason to ban all video of this nature from one video service.
I understand that you think this will happen repeatedly, but everyone else says that you're wrong. (Honestly, I doubt that it ever happened the way that you lay it out.)
According to the National Counter Terrorism Center, many terrorists come from middle-class backgrounds and have university-level educations. In other words, educated radicals are perfectly normal, not surprising.
In addition, the NCTC also states that there are no visible outward signs of radicalization so how would anyone know how long it took?
An MI5 report, Understanding Radicalisation and Violent Extremism in the UK, publicized by The Guardian, emphasized that there are many diverse possible routes that can lead to an individual being radicalized, so yanking a few videos isn't going to address the issue.
As for your assertion that people are in danger from watching videos, the British MI5, in a report about radicalism in the UK, said that people 'do not become radicalised simply through passive browsing of extremist websites'.
They also noted that while it's 'popular to assume that -people who become terrorists are passively 'brainwashed' into extremism, individuals in fact make active choices to become and remain in extremist activity'.
In other words, you're wrong. Have a nice day, though. :)
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Requirement? Really?
In light of that, I wonder how much of a 'requirement' it really was. Maybe the German government went, 'Hey, we don't like this!' and Google went, 'Okay, tell you what you can do...'.
The post says 'required Google to agree', not 'ordered Google to comply', which leaves alot of room for doubt about Google's implied reluctance. In fact, I read a different article that quoted German authorities being surprised at Google's opt-out program. (That's here, by the way.)
Anyway...
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Re: Re: When are you going to tell the TRUTH Mike. ???
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm a blurrer right here in the US.
Actually, in light of this option being available in a different country for such a long period of time, I wonder how much of a 'requirement' it really was. Maybe the German government went, 'Hey, we don't like this!' and Google went, 'Okay, tell you what you can do...'.
The post says 'required Google to agree', not 'ordered Google to comply', which leaves alot of room for doubt about Google's implied reluctance. In fact, I read a different article that quoted German authorities being surprised at Google's opt-out program. (That's here, by the way.)
As for your irkedness (Is that a word?), you're welcome to come take a photo of my home whenever you like. I don't even have a fence in front (Stupid city ordinances...) so you'd be able to see it just fine, with no blurriness at all. :)
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Re: Re: Re: Other's reasons are not for *you* to judge.
On the post: $1,595 To Talk With The FCC About Telco Policy? Lobbyists Welcome; Average Citizens... Not So Much
Open Meetings?
You know, the public that's paying them to attend these meetings.
On the post: One Dunkin Donuts Tries To Abolish The Penny... Until Customers Demand It Back
Re: Re: Just get rid of pennies!
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Re: Re: I'm a blurrer right here in the US.
In addition, only a tiny fraction of people are going to take advantage of this option, but a large percentage of people are likely to be comforted by the availability alone, making this option a good choice for Google.
At no point did I state that Google did not have the right to take a picture or video of my home. I simply stated that my comfort is a good reason for Google to choose to offer a way to opt-out of that service.
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Re:
First, blurry on Street View is not the same thing as absent on satellite or map view. Next, Google is not the only mapping service.
Believe me, blurry buildings on Street View are not going to stop anyone from finding a business.
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
I'm a blurrer right here in the US.
Is there a good reason for it? Yes, it makes me more comfortable.
Or is that not a good reason, anymore?
On the post: Warner Bros. So Thrilled With Netflix 28-Day Delays, It Wants To Have Longer Delays
Streaming, FTW.
If they choose to delay the availability of new releases by 28 more days in exchange for greater streaming access to Warner's catalog, I'm all for it.
On the post: Trademark Law (Once Again) Getting In The Way Of Fan Art
Re: Re: (Idiot AC?)
That's what youre going to be arguing against.
On the post: One Dunkin Donuts Tries To Abolish The Penny... Until Customers Demand It Back
Re: Friggin' rediculous indeed
/sarcasm
On the post: Virginia High School Says Barring Students From Doing Outside Research Helps Them 'Think For Themselves'
Re:
On the post: Turns Out TV Cord Cutters Are, In Fact, Young, Educated And Employed
Re: How? Just ask.
On the post: Free Speech vs. Anonymity Gone Wild: Women Suing Joe Francis Fight To Remain Anonymous
Re: Have you really thought this one through?
I feel sorry for their embarrassment, but you can't say no AFTER the fact.
Next >>