This is a followup to my August 12th article in which I mentioned the Google Street View photos that have been taken all over the United States. I read today that Google has announced they plan to launch Street View in 20 German cities. Seems that a LOT of the German people remember too well the "secret police surveillance" and are opting out.
For those in eastern Germany, the secret police Stasi spied on every single aspect of private life and a well-known joke dating back to the years of communism runs like this: "Why, despite all the shortages, is toilet paper in eastern Germany two-ply? Because they have to send a copy of everything they do to Russia."
Before that, the Hitler regime, tracking down Jewish people, communists and enemies of the state wherever they were living or hiding, was even more of a trauma.
So now that Google's Street View wants to show images of German streets for everybody to see on the internet, politicians from all parties are up in arms against it.
I don't see how a picture of the front of your house should cause you great alarm but maybe that's because I haven't lived through anything like the older Germans or those who were once a part of East Germany.
I'll also compare this to our public records. Most of Europe's landowners enjoy privacy. You can't go into the local courthouse and view anyone else's deed. Not true in the good ole' U.S.A. You can look at any public record – deeds, wills, divorces, marriages, taxes, etc. Even our incorporation doesn't shield us. Almost all states allow you to research the name of every owner or member of an incorporated company.
So, what does this mean to me? Well, it's interesting. I haven't thought about "privacy issues" related to land surveying before. I don't mind someone having a picture of the front of my house or office. (In fact, the office picture probably helps me, as I said in the previous post.) But, I have to admit that I've always thought that I'd rather have my records at the courthouse more private than they are now.
So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. – Sir William Blackstone (1783)
Imagine the possibilities. What if Alice had one of these in Wonderland? Then she would have known where she had been. Still wouldn't have known where she was going.
While we may be a few years away from seeing this in the mainstream, we're there already with the same concept on the back of a truck. Go over to my friends Adam Arrington and John Dudley's site at Earl Dudley. Watch the video here.
This is the same technology (and brand) that are used by over 30 mappers who work for Google Maps that travel all over the U.S. and map the streets and surrounding buildings. If you've not seen the "street-level" view, go here to my site for a glimpse. Look over on the right side of the page for the photo. If you click on it, you'll be taken to the Google Maps for my office. Enjoy.
WARNING – First time I saw this I moved around for over an hour looking at different places.
Try this location in Google Maps = 27°59'17.62"N 86°55'30.42"E Let me know when you find out where you are. I just hope you come back 'ALIVE"! (Link for those who want it.) Oh, and you'll want to click on EARTH to get the 3-D effect.
"For the reasons stated in the defendant's brief, the court finds that Dr. Maddox easily qualifies as such a 'quintessential expert for hire' not only for the length, frequency and apparent lucrativeness, but also the litigation orientation he exhibited in attempting to add a proper empirical basis for his opinion after he had originally stated his sworn opinion and the court first found that it was inadmissible. This transgressed the scientific rule that the empirical data should lead to the theory, not vice versa. Although no person probably enjoys seeing their testimony discounted, during his live testimony at the hearing on this motion, Dr. Maddox's behavior seemed much more consistent with an advocate than a dispassionate scientist/witness," Parrott said in the order.
This opinion was formed during the "Daubert hearing" [insert link to my article] that lasted the whole day. In addition to the 1993 Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma, the judge also cited a 1996 decision from the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals saying "the courtroom is not the place for scientific guesswork, even on the inspired sort," and the 2005 Georgia Law governing the use of expert witnesses saying the opinion "is not practically testable and has not been tested."
The judge also speaks to the "expert for hire" issue. A full-time expert witness seems to always carry this stigma. A professional practitioner who also serves as an expert in a few cases, and who draws only a portion of his fees from expert testimony seems to be more acceptable to judges and juries. What percentage I guess is based on the opinion of the judge. But, you can bet, that the Daubert hearings will increase because of this and other cases of late.
In the 
