Comments on: Google Sneak Views: Part I

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:55:20 +0000

“Google is a properly registered company whose services and products are now essential and integral Internet components”

Eric Schmidt, is this you?

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:45:20 +0000

I looked at my friends house the other day and there is a cute blond waling in front of his house and her face IS NOT blurred.

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:55:48 +0000

@ ‘another groundless P2PNet attack’

Yes. *sigh*

Poor Google.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:13:27 +0000

Can’t wait for part 2

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:36:42 +0000

LOL @ 3rd RW:
“google being “essential”.

LOL I pee’d myself.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:12:02 +0000

I’d be sore too if Google owed me money and refused to pay.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:29:27 +0000

This is just another groundless P2PNet attack against Google.

Google is a properly registered company whose services and products are now essential and integral Internet components.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:19:49 +0000

“The strange thing is that it may be legal for someone to take a photograph of you (in a public place) without your permission,”

And it may not be, as is the case with some Prov’s in Canada and countries.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:15:28 +0000

The strange thing is that it may be legal for someone to take a photograph of you (in a public place) without your permission, but illegal for you to make a copy of that picture of yourself without the permission of the person who stole the image without permission of the subject being photographed (if that makes any sense).

Try declaring your house (or your face) a work of art, register a copyright, then issue takedown demands against anyone who photographs it.