posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 02:03 PM
Originally posted by astrocreepBut, certain entities are allowed to conduct pertinant business and enter private property such as law
enforcment (in pursuit), right of way surveyors(under state procurement), utility providers ( usually in the contract one signs for service).
Indeed. However, these entities have a responsibility to keep private things private and restrict their activities to that which they are assigned.
Certainly one can ascertain the alternative motives of an ecological activist group including nice high-level arial shots of mansions right on their
eroding coastline. There is no reason they could not have operated in a more sensitive manner on this issue, other than to serve motives not
If we exclude Babs property from the study then we set a precedent
From my understanding of the lawsuit, she is not asking that the photos that show detailed arial shots of her properpty be excluded from a valid
study, she simply doesn't want them publicly displayed, and made available to anyone who asks. This seems to be a very logical request. And the
reaction, to provide detailed photographs of a private citizen's property to anyone who asks, seems a very irresponsible stance.
really I could see her anger if this was the Enquirer or something like that
No. It's just the entire online world. (in theory)
but being its a research study which included the entire coastline in question,
There are better ways to examine this phenomenon than non-aligned photographs from a non-calibrated variable altitude helicopter unable to take the
exact same picture in the exact same way one year later. This seems less like a valid study, and more like a public awareness campaign for the cause.
(which by itself, if is a noble effort, but the methods seem irresponsible)
[Edited on 6-6-2003 by William]