EARTHHIDE (03.06.09)

1.) California does not have the authority to enact such a bill, as it would infringe on Google's first amendment rights. Since internet communication is an area covered by federal law, states do not have the right to "override" it with their own legislation.

2.) It would be pointless. So what if California passed this law? Even though Google has it's headquarters in California, the state still has no authority over Google's activities outside its borders. Since Google has servers all over the world, California doesn't have a say in what happens there.

3.) California does not have the ability to enforce such a bill. Internet content cannot be filtered geographically with any reasonable degree of success within the U.S., because the network of servers and connections is so complicated and intricate. There is no way California could expect Google Earth content will be modified in their state.

4.) The California assembly doesn't have time for this silly crap. Check out

www.bakersfield.com/102/story/709247.html

With a "to do" list like this, would YOU consider this issue worthy of your attention?

This prop is short, short, short.

Link to this comment

CplLenny

from alpha, il

03/18/09 at 12:55 pm

news Video: http://www.kusi.com/news/goodmorning/40796132.html?video=YHI&t=a
this is long or at lest has a good chance.

When life gives you to many Apple IPO's make Apple sauce, now where did I put that blender?

Link to this comment

vulgarian

03/19/09 at 1:54 am

Cplenny; that clip gives no reason why this prop should be long. If anything, it shows why it should be short. Consider this;

Joel Anderson, the windbag who appears in the clip and introduced the bill, presents absolutely NO reason to blur Google Earth photos. Oh yes, he points out that it would make things like ventilation shafts and elevators less obvious, but guess what... in the U.S. you're allowed to VISIT churches and government buildings and gather much more detailed info.

No one asked the windbag if California had the legal right or ability to pass such legislation. California does not, and the California legislature has a whole lot more to deal with than this doofus's self-promoting but unworkable bill.

And finally note that he admits the bill needs "a lot of work". This is clearly not ready for a vote.

This bill has the stink of a self-promoter looking to get his name in the news, and since Anderson is NOT an established power in the California legislature, this bill has little chance of getting any attention beyond the media exposure Anderson can milk from it.

Short, short, short.

Link to this comment

yo33

03/23/09 at 8:11 pm

My brain is a little blurred on what "open floor of the California Assembly" actually means. It's the open part I'm not sure of. Is there ever a closed floor?

From what I gather, the California Legislature consists of two houses: the Senate and the Assembly. Since this bill was introduced by an Assemblyman, this bill goes to Assembly committees (not sure which - Rules, Fiscal, Appropriations, others?) for a first reading. If the required committees pass the bill, it is then read on the floor of the Assembly and a third reading is scheduled. No vote happens until after the third reading. And that's just an Assembly vote. It still has to go through the Senate side before it even has a chance to become law.

But, since the prop says it just needs to make it to the "open floor of the California Assembly", am I correct in stating that this second reading is the event we're looking for, and that no actual vote is required?

Maybe it doesn't matter at this point. The bill is "in committee" right now, but the first reading/hearing has been cancelled by the author.

www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0251-0300/ab_255_bill_20090317_status.html

"LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/17/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author."

I'd still just like some clarification on the specific event that would pay this out.