Reign Down

Conditions: Rainy, bitter

Whither Privacy?

So, a guy is suing Google because one of it's street-view camera cars took it's photo of his property as he was standing in the yard, relieving himself. Even though Google blurred his face, he lives in a small town and everyone figured out who he is. This seems a fairly straight forward invasion of privacy to me, but perhaps that's being old fashioned?

He could have gone into the backyard if he has to pee in his yard, seems to me.

Most people that I know try to pose in some oddball way if they see the Google truck roll by. These things are very identifiable. At least 30 countries including the U.S., Canada, most of Western Europe, Australia and Russia have cars driving around taking pictures.

While there are privacy concerns, the benefit to the public far outweighs any concerns. Google plans on using the cameras to shoot the entire Amazon River as well as the Great Barrier Reef--underwater. Some street view mapping of Antarctica has been done as well. This is the sort of thing that only a very profitable company can afford. Nobody has reported on the total number of cars being used to record these images but it has to be in the thousands. And they do keep busy. Over the past few years I've seen three different pictures of my own house and I may have missed a couple. Google is currently going to 4th generation digital cameras and re-shooting everything with better resolution.

If you are going to travel anywhere, this is an amazing resource that should be embraced, not rejected.
[...]

As for personal privacy, who cares? This is the age of sharing. I know I'm always trying to get into one of these pictures. In fact the company should schedule the drive-bys so home owners can be standing in front of their houses or employees can gather in front of office buildings, waving as the car goes by. Most people would love that.

- pcmag.com/

So, just so we're clear, basically Google have the right to take embarrassing photos of you and your house, put them on the web, because they are a big company and are photographing the Amazon river? When the hell did good intentions become an excuse to potentially break laws? While google may well be doing good things, it still matters in how they go about it, and respect needs to be maintained. I don't want to have unflattering pictures of me sent across the interweb, and I'm sure most people feel the same, no matter how connected we are. The control over what we are is rapidly slipping out of our hands.




Film Review: Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 3D

Well, here we go again. George Lucas, sensing another trend stirring in the wind, is now busy re-revising his movies into 3D format and re-re-releasing them to the theaters again. So we start at the new beginning, with the Phantom Menace 3D. Now traditionally I've hated 3D with a passion. It's annoying, it's clunky, and it's distracting. I've always felt it actually detracts from the film-going experience, rather than enhances. But I've seen The Phantom Menace before, several times in fact. So since I know what's going to happen, could the 3D actually make it better?

Well, somewhat. The movie is of course as bad as we all remember. Blah blah, trade federation. Blah blah, ambassadors. Blah blah, senate. Then we have Jar-Jar, the most annoying character of all time, and Jake Lloyd, playing Darth Vader as a young excitable boy. Then the Pod race happens, which stops the movie dead, but at least is a lot of fun. Then the movie starts up once more, stumbling along through awkward dialogue and various political intrigues before picking up speed again for the big finale. It's a mess of good intentions and clutter. Of course Lucas was always going to do the 3D conversion properly, and subsequently it is suitably impressive. I still get distracted by various bits, however. A background that seems a little flat, or a part of the screen that's a little blurry, it's a technology that I feel will always distract. But given this particular film, the distractions are almost welcome, especially when they are well done.

What more can be really said about this film, one that has had so much heated debate for the last decade or so? I do think it would serve well for children getting their first taste of Star Wars. I do think there are some interesting ideas, under the wallpaper. I do think the action sequences are top notch. But the plots are terribly muddled, and not really explained out. And the Jedi are, in the end, boring characters who wind up in exciting situations. That's fine when you also have a Han Solo type character who's eminently watchable and fun, but when all there are to be seen are Jedi, robots, and politicians, you eventually realise you are watching a lifeless thing, a computerized thing, a thing without a real beating heart or furrowed brow. And that's what is at the center of the fall of the Star Wars empire: not because of a kid who felt too much, but because of a man who felt too little. Two robots out of five.


- Peace out