the.Inevitable.Org/anism

I just listened to a great podcast from ITConversations that was a
presentation at Pop!Tech 2005.  It was a wonderful talk by Graham
Flint about the Gigapxl Project. 
This is some amazing work where they are now taking pictures at extreme
resolutions - close to 4 Gigapixels!  That is close to 4000
Megapixels … a LOT more than the digital cameras that you can buy
today.  They are using some highly custom cameras to be able to
take pictures with incredible resolutions, built out of old U2 spy
plane parts.  These are still “film” cameras, but he also
discusses the work on fully digital versions of these cameras being
built.

In his talk he mentions some interesting things that they find when
they are able to zoom in on these extremely detailed images.  He
talks about this image of paragliders
on the coast of California.  When his wife was reviewing the
image, she found people watching with binoculars and telescopes … but
they were looking down
… not up!  When they followed the track of the people’s vision,
they found that below the paragliders was a nudist beach!  When
they put this particular image in a museum, the resolution was so good
that they had to mask the faces and heads of the nudists!  This
opens a whole new conversation about privacy … and continues to beg
the question “Is there such thing as privacy?”

The site has got a lot of very cool images, and examples of the
abilitty to zoom.  They even had a cityscape of my hometown of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania! 

I’ll have to check which podcast had the Q&A, however they did
bring up the questions of privacy.  In this image of  PETCO Park
he talks about the fact that they have detailed images of ~15,000
people … and how would you ever get a release from all of these
people?  As a friend and I talked about this, it means that a
single photo of a demonstration or rally might give details images of
the people attending.  Uh … what are you doing in that hotel room on the 15th floor?

It is truly some amazing work, and the podcast was a great
listen.  I’ve attached the link to this post … we’ll see if it
works for you!

I love this article … and I’m almost amused at the perspective presented in this article - Blogger Blocked at U.S. Border. 
A Canadian citizen was blocked from coming into the U.S. from Toronto
when U.S. border guards found references in his blog to being based in
New York. The blogger seems to be surprised that someone would hold him
accountable for what he wrote!

“One of them, a very sharp guy in fact, started to read every single post on
my blog. And it didn’t take long until he shocked me: ‘So you live in New York,
right? That’s what you’ve written in your [blog].’”

Derakhshan did, in fact, write that he was based out of New York—mostly
because it sounded “sexier” than saying he was based out of Toronto, he said.

But between his offhand blog comment and the fact that he was carrying a
Newsweek magazine sent to him at a New York address, the guards found grounds to
refuse his entry into the United States, for at least the next six months.

According to U.S. policy, as a Canadian citizen Derakhshan may be legally
entitled to stay in the United States for up to six months.

Canadian citizens entering the United States as visitors for business do not
require either a passport or a visa, although visitors are required to satisfy
border guards of their citizenship, according to the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection’s site.

“It was obvious the guy was trying to find an excuse not to let me in, and he
found something,” Derakhshan told Ziff Davis Internet News. “He found that I
said in the blog that I said I’m based in New York now. He said being based in
New York is illegal.”

Uh … excuse me, but it seems to me that Mr. Derakhshan made the
choice to be irresponsible with his writing … he publicly claimed to
be in violation of the law.  The “sharp guy” realized that not
only was this Canadian carrying a magazine with an address to him in
the U.S., but he outright claimed to be “based” in New York … in
direct violation of the law!

So what is the big deal?  You got what you asked for.  You were more interested in “looking good” (”Derakhshan did, in fact, write that he was based out of New York—mostly
because it sounded “sexier” than saying he was based out of Toronto, he said.”) and are now surprised at the consequences of your actions and words.

It is always amazing to me when people want to act surprised when they
get caught in their inauthenticities.  I remember being taught to
be very careful what I say … and to understand the consequences of
telling lies.  It appears that either he really was based in New
York illegally, or that his claims to look good have simply caught up
with him.

In either case, I love the idea of the border guards using Google!