This purchase serevent online would have been an empirical observation, because at that time cheapest cialis price people had no idea that infections were caused by germs. buy cheap glucophage Additionally, a person should pick up any prescribed or recommended buy griseofulvin once daily over-the-counter (OTC) medications. In people with coronary heart disease, these viagra malaysia arteries are either narrower than they should be or plaque sale vibramycin buildups have partially blocked them. It is important to go buy cheap triamterene online to the emergency department for minor bleeding or bleeding that order cheap cialis online has stopped after a tonsillectomy. In the traditional approach, a generic bentyl cheap surgeon makes a bigger incision over the knee that exposes cheap generic synthroid the joint. They may also jeopardize the delicate ocular surface, injure.

Well, we don’t really know, but a case alleging that was just¬†decided in favor of Google.¬†Aaron and Christine Boring claimed that their privacy had been violated when the Google camera car photographed their house, and asked for a bunch of money. Unfortunately for them, they had an awful case. They presented no evidence they’d been damaged, and they also made no effort to hide their street address when they filed their lawsuit (something that’s easy to do if you are worried about that information being made public). For privacy zealots, not the case with which you want to go forward. It sets a precedent that will make it at least a bit harder for any other plaintiff to prevail.

Frankly, I can’t get excited about this as a privacy violation. But I have to acknowledge that it’s a little weird that people can be sitting in Rwanda looking at what kind of car I drive and whether I keep my bushes trimmed.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 19th, 2009 at 8:19 pm and is filed under Privacy, Surveillance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.