Town Uses Google Earth to Look for Illegal Pools

Owch.. Eventually when Google updates the scan, they'll have many more who dodged the permit!

Next up, live satellite feed for parking tickets.

Followed by satellite Images of kids skipping school

BS.

It can be used on catching illegal prostitution, pimps, and drug dealers. Oh, and nudists.

You did not get a permit you got caught, you have to pay. I have problem with that. Using Google Earth should not be an issue, anyone can use it, why not the township.

No, i would agree that this is an invasion of privacy.

its irrelevant what crime a person is or is not guilty of, this is the equivalent of planting a camera in a persons home to catch them illegally downloading movies. i'm sure this cannot be legal.

How is this less legal than someone who works for the municipality walking past gardens to check for pools? It's just more efficient.

Its a hole with water and all was peachy because of PRIVACY fences..I guess we are going to have to start building privacy overheads now..oh wait that's ANOTHER permit...from the city with love.

I support this.

If I want to build a pool in my backyard, they only thing I'll do is call the city to make sure there isn't any water/gas pipes (which shouldn't even be a issue, because they put them under the roads here).
I fully, honestly believe that, if I think a law is complete BS, then I'll ignore it (it's illegal to spit on the ground or even a trashcan in my city).

This sounds like someone is just trying to catch lawbreakers, not actually trying to catch those who are harming society.

The revenuers are calling!

"Riverhead's chief building inspector Leroy Barnes Jr. said that permits are required to ensure that all pools meet safety requirements."

No, what they really want is to add the value to your home to increase their tax revenue. I can see having an inspection of your pool, but its pretty bad when you need a permit just to change shingles on your home.

Using google earth could be seen as an invasion of privacy as stated prior. As for the inspectors "walking by" if they came on your property they would be tresspassing and we all know how legal that is. I'll stick with the catch me if you can slogan for BS township ideas like this.

LOL, the permits are used to fill coffers. IF some guy does show up, he'll inspect for 5 minutes before saying OK looks good.

Ultimately, you can choose which laws to obey. But this doesn't preclude you from those laws. These individuals committed crimes. They must pay the penalties according to those offenses. They are harming society because they are not following the letter of the law. Case in point - if your child dies as a result of these standards they didn't follow, that inspectors would have deemed hazardous and requiring correction, then the onus falls on them who broke the law to pay the price. The law is the law.

If you decide you are above the law, and start to choose which laws to obey, how many more laws will you begin to ignore as your morals degrade. As the only perfect man said when he walked this earth: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."

Pools often decrease home value. The permit (and inspection process) are to ensure that the enclosure for the pool is up to code. That is so that when your 2 year old wanders into your neighbors yard where they just installed a pool with no fence, you won't find them floating face down.

If it can't be seen from the road, it's over stepping their jurisdiction. Maybe they should buy a helicopter.

In some towns/cities/etc, the police/regulatory agency/etc are restricted to what's in view without the homeowner's conscent. So, say they walk past your house...you have an "illegal" pool in your backyard. If it's in "plain view" of the street....you're SOL. If you have a 6" fence blocking the view of said pool, the police/regulatary agency/etc is SOL because it'd be considered trespassing for them to enter the property without your permission. The same should apply to the use of Google Earth. You have no given Google concent to photograph your property, thus making the action an invasion of privacy. Which would prohibit the police/regulatory agency/etc from legally using Google Earth to further invade your privacy.

BTW, Google has been sued over photography people's property without conscent in the past....and LOST. By law, in most states anyway, if there's a "No Trespassing" sign in place...it's illegal to enter the property in any manor...including aerial/orbital photographs.

ya economy is tight, this is just another way to generate revinue...

why do you need a permit to dig a hole in your garden and then fill with water?

its not like it affects anything

"Riverhead's chief building inspector Leroy Barnes Jr. said that permits are required to ensure that all pools meet safety requirements."

Correction:

"Riverhead's chief building inspector Leroy Barnes Jr. said that permits are required to ensure that...we can properly tax and fee all residents to our greatest extent."

It won't be long till each of us are implemented with an RFID tracking chip implanted under our skin...

There is not enough information to judge whether the permit process is reasonable.

What does the permit process involve? Does it mean that inspected pools must reach minimum safety standards whereas the other pools might not? Is it to do with water consumption in the area?

This won't stop the usual "human rights" people crying foul over what might be a very reasonable and sensible requirement.

"Ultimately, you can choose which laws to obey. But this doesn't preclude you from those laws. These individuals committed crimes. They must pay the penalties according to those offenses."

But the police ultimately decide which laws to enforce and which ones to let "slide". When increased revenue is the ultimate reward, what's to stop govt from making practically everything illegal and then choosing the most lucrative and easy offenses to go after?

Just because something's a law doesn't make it "right". Here in Alabama we have many dumb laws on the books. It's still technically illegal here for mixed couples to marry. Should this be strictly enforced because it THE LAW?

The border situation with Mexico is shambolic..but hey, that dude's got a pool that's too damn big!! That's gonna do far more damage, eh..after all, we have to get our priorities right. Pity you don't send your bloody satellites over the Southern border, particularly the South Westen United States where the 'Reconquesta' brigade sticks it's proverbial two fingers up at the sky. Where the damage to the environment seen from outer space.

Instead of worrying about bits of water in New York, point your bloody satellites at the views certain business as well as political interests, would rather we didn't see!

I skimmed all the comments but didn't see the point I'd like to make. If I missed it I apologize. In the article it states the town is using the free software Google Earth. Google Earth is only free for noncommercial use. In the legal clause it states if the software is to be used for commercial use (generate revenue) then the user must purchase a license (about $400 per person at my company at least). Technically what the town is doing is illegal if they have not procured the proper licensing and are gaining monetarily through Google's product.

For all of you who said this was invasion of privacy and can be taken to court; you are correct. Just because the technology exists to enable a city, county or government agency to 'see' you without you knowing, does not give them the right to then charge you with a crime or fees due to this kind of surveillance. This is just as illegal for police officers to run the tags of cars on the highway 'just because'; without probable cause for them to 'investigate' in the first place, does NOT give them the right to go proactively/(reactively?) looking for a way to make money and numbers off of lazy investigational work. Until this can pass as being a legitimate way for an entity to perform records checks and updates, you cannot hold the general public liable and responsible for something they are unaware of being investigated for using questionable information gathering.

Yeah, pools from 3 years ago maybe lol

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think its illegal to take a picture of anyones property as long as they do not trespass into said property. What would be the difference between this and the town sending inspector to drive around in a vehicle like the one used to fix street lamps, If they use the vehicle from the street then they do not trespass. I also submit that they wouldn't even need to take a picture of the pool as long as the one who sees it has the proper authority, they would technically be a witness. People are just mad because they got caught, If you have an illegal pool then you gotta pay up. I also believe that any construction company that builds a pool without proper city permits is NOT to be trusted to build anything in your home.

Well I do not know all the laws in every state but where I live, if the structure in question is already built, and you did it without a permit, they cannot charge you for or with anything; however if code enforcement guys catch you building without a permit, oh boy, your in for some hefty fines.

Which in this state would be way too late and the county could do nothing.

Don't forget to sue aeroplane pilots who happen to fly above your head.

@nezzy if everybody thought like that we'd still be ruled by britian.

Just because something is a law doesn't make it right.

Must have used shady contractors. Where I live, when you hire a contractor to do such work for you they include the cost of getting a permit in their estimate and they get the permit for you before starting work. Any contractor that doesn't do that (or at least insist that you get the permit yourself) is flying under the radar. If they are cutting corners on permits, you have to ask yourself if they are cutting corners in other areas as well. Can you really trust them?