|
Videos
August 17, 2010 By Russell Nichols
The eyes-in-the-sky approach that the town of Riverhead, N.Y., used to find pools without proper permits didn't fly with everyone.
In the past few weeks, Riverhead officials had been using Google Earth's detailed satellite images and identified about 250 swimming pools whose owners hadn't filled out paperwork certifying that their structures were safe and up to code. According to town officials, pools without permits could be dangerous because without inspections, it's unknown whether the structures meet safety regulations. Because of Google Earth, Riverhead has been able to collect about $75,000 in fees from violators.
But objections from privacy advocates flooded the Long Island town as critics claimed the high-tech method erodes privacy rights and evokes the "we're watching you" feel of Big Brother.
"Technically it may be lawful, but in the gut it does not feel like a free society kind of operation," the New York Civil Liberties Union's Donna Lieberman told The Associated Press.
Riverhead officials have decided to stop using the free satellite imaging service. Still, Chief Building Inspector Leroy Barnes Jr. dismissed invasion of privacy charges, stating that the town only aims to make sure owners have safe swimming pools, nothing more.
You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.govtech.com/policy-management/Is-Google-Earth-Eyeing-Your-Pool.html
In fact privacy is a very important public management topic, but it is not a static problem. My suggestion is: if the problem becomes critic (as in these case that it seems a lot of pools have not permits) it is allowed to the Gov, who represents "the people" to use means equivalently respectful means to avoid. Another topic to reflect about: if I have a pool, I dont buy the right for that pool not to be watched from the satellite. The image of my pool watched from the sky is "public", is not private. The right to "use" my pool is private. I hope it helps for the debate. Regards Jose Machicao
In fact privacy is a very important public management topic, but it is not a static problem. My suggestion is: if the problem becomes critic (as in these case that it seems a lot of pools have not permits) it is allowed to the Gov, who represents "the people" to use means equivalently respectful means to avoid. Another topic to reflect about: if I have a pool, I dont buy the right for that pool not to be watched from the satellite. The image of my pool watched from the sky is "public", is not private. The right to "use" my pool is private. I hope it helps for the debate. Regards Jose Machicao
In fact privacy is a very important public management topic, but it is not a static problem. My suggestion is: if the problem becomes critic (as in these case that it seems a lot of pools have not permits) it is allowed to the Gov, who represents "the people" to use means equivalently respectful means to avoid. Another topic to reflect about: if I have a pool, I dont buy the right for that pool not to be watched from the satellite. The image of my pool watched from the sky is "public", is not private. The right to "use" my pool is private. I hope it helps for the debate. Regards Jose Machicao
As your article states free aerial imagery is available from a number of sources. There is no informed reasonable objection to using it for government purposes. If politicians interfere, it will only make government cost more. Would Riverhead stop doing property assessments because it feels like an invasion of privacy? Should aerial reconnaisance for marijuana growing operations be curtailed? My only suggestion is that Riverhead and all public entities using Google Earth or other aerial imagery portals should do press releases on the savings it produces in making government more efficient and at the same time addressing the limits of resolution (eg, it cannot recognize people or smaller objects. Let government be operated just by what people object to and you might as well move to Greece.
As your article states free aerial imagery is available from a number of sources. There is no informed reasonable objection to using it for government purposes. If politicians interfere, it will only make government cost more. Would Riverhead stop doing property assessments because it feels like an invasion of privacy? Should aerial reconnaisance for marijuana growing operations be curtailed? My only suggestion is that Riverhead and all public entities using Google Earth or other aerial imagery portals should do press releases on the savings it produces in making government more efficient and at the same time addressing the limits of resolution (eg, it cannot recognize people or smaller objects. Let government be operated just by what people object to and you might as well move to Greece.
As your article states free aerial imagery is available from a number of sources. There is no informed reasonable objection to using it for government purposes. If politicians interfere, it will only make government cost more. Would Riverhead stop doing property assessments because it feels like an invasion of privacy? Should aerial reconnaisance for marijuana growing operations be curtailed? My only suggestion is that Riverhead and all public entities using Google Earth or other aerial imagery portals should do press releases on the savings it produces in making government more efficient and at the same time addressing the limits of resolution (eg, it cannot recognize people or smaller objects. Let government be operated just by what people object to and you might as well move to Greece.
My question is - why is the city even reviewing pools? Shouldn't the owner have taken out a permit prior to building the pool? What right does the city have to retroactivly enforce such things??
My question is - why is the city even reviewing pools? Shouldn't the owner have taken out a permit prior to building the pool? What right does the city have to retroactivly enforce such things??
My question is - why is the city even reviewing pools? Shouldn't the owner have taken out a permit prior to building the pool? What right does the city have to retroactivly enforce such things??
If u r carrying a phone (mobile) then let's not talk about privacy. Ur whereabouts r already known.
Kai Ponte - yes, the owners should've taken out a permit prior to building a pool. However, it's obvious that not everyone does. If they did, there wouldn't be a need for the current tactic used by the city.