SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Niantic faces a class action lawsuit for encouraging trespassing on private property:
When Niantic released Pokemon Go, it randomly placed Pokémon, Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms all over the world. Players of the game wander the real world and use smartphones to capture Pokemon, buy items and fight Pokemon Gym leaders.
"To create that immersive world, Niantic made unauthorized use of Plaintiff's and other Class members' property by placing Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms thereupon or nearby," said Jennifer Pafiti in the lawsuit. "In so doing, Niantic has encouraged Pokémon Go's millions of players to make unwanted incursions onto the properties of plaintiff, and other members of the class, a clear and ongoing invasion of their use and enjoyment of their land from which defendants have profited and continue to profit."
Due to the randomized placement of the Pokémon, Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms, they have turned up in some unwanted locations such as in houses, cemeteries and museums. According to Jeffrey Marder, a man living in New Jersey, he received at least five unwelcome visitors that wanted access to his backyard to catch Pokémon within the first week of the game's launch.
"Plaintiff and other Class members have all suffered and will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result of Defendants' unlawful and wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy," said Pafiti.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VanessaE on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:44PM
And what good can possibly come from a whack-job, drunk redneck pointing a gun at innocent kids? How about you yell at him instead of blaming the kids who harmlessly trespassed on his oh-so-precious land?
I don't care much for the game, but it definitely does kids more good than harm. Throw his screwball ass in prison for a while, take away his gun rights, etc.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:15PM
What is the point of owning property; If anyone anytime can come on it and do whatever they want. Do you know the color purple on a fence post means? Do you understand what Private Property is? The "redneck" has a gun to protect himself from you. You have no respect for him or his property. He should fear you; for you have no respect for civilization. The fact that he is stupid and drunk matters not. He has his own land to be stupid and drunk on. That's why he protects it from others.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by VanessaE on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:22PM
When did I say "anyone anytime"? I was talking about some kids wandering onto his land, as with the parent, without noticing the sign. That redneck with his gun is not protecting himself against anything. Why should he fear me (or rather, the aforementioned kids)? At what point has anyone shown any intent to cause him any harm?
He's more than welcome to get as drunk as he wants on his land, but HE is the one having no respect for civilization, by pointing a G*d damned gun at some kids. If he's that worried, he can call the cops.
Do YOU understand what "excessive force" means? You should NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to KILL, and you sure as hell better be prepared to deal with the consequences of pulling that trigger.
And what's with purple fenceposts? I looked it up, and in my 42 years on this planet, I have never heard of something so utterly ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:39PM
The theoretical redneck who shoots kids because he got spooked by them wandering onto his land is not in the right, not valid self-defense from my perspective.
However, no one is in the right, if we have respect for private property, the idea of going wandering the labyrinth of privately owned physical property to search for digital widgets without the owners consent is not reasonably expected to happen.
I'll set up a nice sight seeing marathon/cycle race using google maps and an algorithm to generate a nice route and no fucks given about public rights of way or private land. Wont be my fault, or the participants when they are trespassing and damaging crops on farms. They didn't see the signs because they were too busy being social to notice they wern't on a public footpath or public/state park etc.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by VanessaE on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:22PM
I don't disagree here, there are and ought to be societal norms and laws regulating this on both sides of the conflict, it's just that this whole thing with guns and shoot-to-kill and other forms of excessive force is ridiculous. As one article I read when looking up purple fences states, you're not likely to be harmed by a group of Girl Scouts dropping by to sell you some cookies (and if you force them to leave, you ought to be ashamed - Thin Mints ftw! :-) ).
In my opinion, it would be partially your fault, but only if you have reasonable access to data delineating private vs. public land, and you still allow your software to place objectives and waypoints too far into private land (that is, beyond the game's targeting or capture range when the player's standing on neighboring public land). Good luck to anyone who wants to sue you though, since they still have to prove monetary or other tangible damage. In practice, what's the worst that happens, on average? Some grass or a field trampled down in a few places, right? So, authorities need go after the kids (or parents thereof) to deal with any damage that's been done, just as it's always been. Meanwhile, you should be required (on penalty of a fine or something) to delete or move any offending objectives. If there's really nothing damaged that Mother Nature won't fix in short order, then everyone needs to just walk away after that. All of this applies equally to the Niantic case.
The players are responsible for their own behavior, of course, but kids being "too busy to notice" isn't any different now than it ever was. Kids will be kids, and wandering onto someone else's land while they're playing is nothing unusual in my experience, and has generally never been a cause for any particularly bad punishment. Kids, as a rule, don't care about or pay attention to signs and (open) fences and purple paint; they're focused on their game, and all they want to do at that moment is have fun. I'm pretty sure most kids don't have any particular desire to damage anything or hurt anyone in the process (though there's always that one kid who has to be a prick...).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:17PM
"kids will be kids" - Kids are not the only ones playing this ridiculous game. Hopefully the game is only a fad and will fade away soon.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:01PM
In my opinion, it would be partially your fault, but only if you have reasonable access to data delineating private vs. public land, and you still allow your software to place objectives and waypoints too far into private land (that is, beyond the game's targeting or capture range when the player's standing on neighboring public land).
This is key.
Clearly these waypoints were placed by some algorithmic method, with no human involvement, and CLEARLY, not much in the way of respect for private property. I suspect they mined Google maps or Google Earth links. Those sources do contain ownership indicators for a large percentage of the world, and public indicators for just about every road and park.
And NO, I disagree with your exemption of responsibility just because the game maker asserts there is no "reasonable access to data delineating private vs public. You've got it exactly backwards. There is no place in any country that isn't owned by somebody, some authority, or some public entity. No place.
GeoCaching, which bills itself as The largest game on Earth, has clear rules [geocaching.com] about the location of a Geocache, and each such cache has a maintainer who is supposed to seek land-owner permission, maintain the cache, etc.
But Niantic took none of these precautions, and probably is liable for damages, actual property damage s, as well as loss of privacy, risk transference, and general nuisance.
Its not the same as some random neighborhood kid retrieving a ball from your flowerbed. Its a steady stream of strangers, (not all of them children) wandering your lawn at all hours for nothing at all.
Why cant Niantic shut down all off-road targets after dark? Why isn't there a "Pokemon go away app" with which you can draw a bubble around your property and push the targets toward the nearest public road or park?
When the Girl Scouts come on my property to sell me cookies, I'll probably buy some. If the set up a table to sell cookies at the end of my driveway, I'll probably let it slide, for an afternoon. When they show up tomorrow with their table and boxes, I'll shoo them away. But I won't have to, because the girl scouts are polite and would ask ahead of time. Niantic, not so much.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:19PM
Clearly these waypoints were placed by some algorithmic method, with no human involvement
That may seem clear to you, but it is, in fact, completely incorrect. Niantic has been collecting those points, and the pictures of them via crowd sourcing (user submissions) through the Ingress game, for many years. When they first released the Ingress game, the vast majority of points (called "portals" in Ingress) were fire stations and libraries (because they were everywhere, in pretty every town, even small ones). Users were encouraged to find other points of interest to submit. Churches, fountains, monuments, stone historical markers and the like were the most likely types of portals to be approved. And that approval process took several weeks, so I'm quite sure they were reviewed by humans before the showed up in the game. They even have a place to appeal their decisions [google.com] if a portal submission is rejected.
In Ingress, there were people submitting portals that were in private property, but they were typically rejected. Some in private property accessible to the public were created (malls, lobbies of office buildings or large hotels, etc.), but it was very rare to see a portal on private property that was not a publicly accessible space.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:43PM
The fact that pokemon players are darting over private lawns proves the lie in your claim.
What ever method they used, they clearly didn't vet their results against any official source.
Crowdsourced is a cop out. (And probable a false story anyway to avoid having to pay royalties to who ever provided their mapping data.).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:19PM
The fact that pokemon players are darting over private lawns proves the lie in your claim.
No it doesn't, and calling me a liar because of your own soaring ignorance is really rude. I suggest you rethink your response and issue an apology.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:01AM
wtf?
um, BECAUSE it was crowdsourced, (OR WHATEVER THE FUCK) *that* makes it 'okay' ?
that makes less than zero sense...
oh, they curated the info... sure they did...
it may very well be it was screwed up before, but only since it was you and your buddy 'playing', nobody noticed...
now that -apparently- half the stupid fucking human race is 'playing' this idiotic thing, it is more noticeable...
and, NO, i DON"T want poketards -OR ANYONE- wandering over our property, up our private road, around our house, FOR ANY OR NO REASON...
EXACTLY why i live in the country, so i don't see my stupid neighbors, i don't hear a million loud nekkid apes, and my dogs have the run of the property...
and YES, in our neck of the woods, basically ALL (non-neighbor) pedestrians ARE suspicious: we live too far out for anyone to just 'wander' by here on a lark, or on the way to someplace else, just don't happen... we are on the way to nowhere, with no through streets, and no businesses or anything of any significance that attracts people to walk around here...
you got a flat tire/whatever, you will get more help than you can use; you lost a dog, we will all look; you need a phone 'cause yours died, of course...
but IF you are a (non-neighbor) walking out here, it is 'unusual' enough to garner automatic and justifiable suspicion you are up to no good...
(bear in mind we -and a LOT of neighbors- leave our houses unlocked when we go away for a week or more...)
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:37AM
You called me a liar after I proved to you that Niantic staff personally vetting each and every location to ensure it's publicly accessible (among other TOS requirements), and STILL no apology? You're a dick. No wonder you live in the country, nobody would ever want to be around a fucking asshole like you. I feel sorry for the poor sod that has a flat tire near your precious wasteland, as you'll likely treat them like dog shit you scrapped off your shoe, like you have me.
shitass.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:43PM
You've proved nothing.
You've made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims of vetting, yet players still appear on private property chasing digital apparitions that SHOULD NOT BE THERE.
Where's your vetting now?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday August 05 2016, @03:19AM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday August 19 2016, @01:51AM
wtf? part two
i didn't call you a liar, i don't even know what you are talking about, and i could not care less about the ins-outs of the stupid pokeshit or any other such claptrap, whether it was 'crowdsourced' (why not simply say 'its magic!'), or who vetted what for what...
given how weird you talk, i am perfectly fine with you categorizing me as a 'foe' (whatever that stupid shit means)...
WHOEVER was talking about how harmless it was to have poketards (or anyone, anytime?) wander over your PRIVATE property, whether by 'mistake' or not: THAT is the point i was responding to... peoples' (NOT JUST precious, PRECIOUS ME) PRIVATE property has certain rights over YOUR non-right to wander wherever you fucking feel like it... i respect YOUR right to have your private property respected, why don't you respect mine ? ? ?
AGAIN, someone has vehicle trouble/etc, people (including me, yep, based on a true story) will help them out without a second thought... but 'wandering around' out here just isn't a common phenomenon... we got more livestock than people, more limerock than paved roads, and more unwalkable miles between anywhere, so pedestrians kind of stick out... and if you add on to that insult that they are poketards doing *WHAT* the fuck exactly ? ? ? yeah, then it is just maddening on top of annoying...
and finally, i am glad that you approve of my absenting my asshole self from the asphalt rat's maze you oh-so-kind mammals choose to live in; for myself, i prefer trees and flowers and critters and stars and sun and rain and plants and dogs and wind and NO OTHER stupid shits around honking and yelling and boomboxing and screeching and peeling out and yakking and banging and clanging and sirening and revving and shouting and screaming and driving like they are the only person on the road...
yeah, don't really miss too much of that...
foe on, bitch...
(Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:25AM
False story? Considering the 3 portals nearest my house are with names I came up with and with pictures I took, I'm going to have to just shake my head over this doubt-for-the-sake-of-doubting claim.
And yea, 2 of the 3 of them are pokestops, the third is a gym. In Ingress, they even have the player name for who submitted them, and there was an achievement badge for approved new portal submissions.
As for Pokemon players darting over private lawns, it's worth noting that Pokemon, unlike Ingress, isn't all about the pokestops and gyms. The pokemon themselves move, for one, which invariably places them at times on private land. Beyond that, FINDING them is something that takes exploration, because unlike in Ingress, where any game object a player interacts with is right on a map for all to see, the Pokemon are only known to be more or less nearby, but any direction or coordinates are left out so as to encourage wandering around to deduce a position. I've personally yet to encounter a portal that cannot be legally accessed in 4 years of play, at least during certain hours (there are definitely some in cemetaries that do close at night, but it's generally understood, at least among Ingress players, that closed means closed. I'm not sure how much that holds true among the often younger demographic that is playing Pokemon Go).
Niantic should probably provide a more clear method for complaints about portals only accessible on private property, because it's unlikely that none slipped through the cracks in their vetting process. However, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to agree that any court should force them to do this, or frankly that they're legally in the wrong here to begin with. They've always been clear that trespassing is not in the spirit of gameplay, going back to Ingress's beta stage, and holding them accountable for what users of the apps they put out do is like holding football manufacturers responsible for the same type of behavior.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:46PM
You are technically correct. What people don't connect is while the Pokestops and pokemon themselves may be mostly on public property, or publicly accessible property (a few exceptions due to algorithm imperfects), the players in an effort to reduce travel time, or while searching for valuable nearby pokemon, or even because of inaccurate GPS on their devices may deviate from public property and onto private lands.
So, even if Niantic did place all of its digital items perfectly, that doesn't stop the players from disregarding property laws. So, one, Niantic needs an easy means of remediation to remove spawn locations, gyms, and pokestops on the property owner's request; and two, people need to stop freaking out when they see people outside.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:16PM
So, one, Niantic needs an easy means of remediation to remove spawn locations, gyms, and pokestops on the property owner's request
You mean like THIS [nianticlabs.com]? It was the first result on a Google search.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:08AM
So, myself, the media, and the property owners cited in the dozens of articles out there are uninformed. I wish there was a news outlet that reported links like this to keep the hysteria down. Right now the vibe I'm getting from the regular FUD sources is "The Pokemon Goers, they be walking alls over your private property taking your Pokemon! Think of the sex offenders! Think of the children! Think. of. the. children.... Outside! No body watching them! Getting fresh air and **GASP** ____walking!!! and even liking it!"
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:52PM
The kids on private property is the reason that "Rednecks" everywhere have Rock Salt. Good for warding off bad/dumb kids without killing them. Also good to protect the rednecks daughter from soon to be dead beat dads. Shotgun weddings for all! Do you know any "Rednecks?" I doubt it. If you would turn your "Stereo Type" down from 11 you might learn something. Do you know why a man has a Redneck? Do you have a job? Do you work your ass off all day long in the sun? Again; I doubt it. Drop your hate and try to understand people.
#RednecksLivesMatter
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:13PM
Frankly if you wander on to someone elses property ignoring no trespassing signs you getting shot it a predictable outcome.
The fact that this included private property at all is a bunch of hooey IMHO. I hope they loose, and loose big. Limit that stuff to parks and public land.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:18PM
If he's that worried, he can call the cops.
Gun-toting rednecks say "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Have you guys forgotten the unarmed kid shot by a neighborhood watch goon in Florida? Not a damned thing happened to him.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:05PM
Said unarmed kid ATTACKED neighborhood watch guy. Nice how you conveniently seem to forget that part when it doesn't fit your narrative.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:02PM
Said unarmed kid attacked somebody who was menacing him and wound up paying the price.
The whole thing would never have happened if that idiot watch person hadn't been up to no good. A firearm is not a replacement for a penis or proper common sense.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:18AM
Said unarmed kid attacked somebody who was menacing him and wound up paying the price.
I wonder why was it that the neighborhood watch man was on the phone with 911 during the incident, but the "unarmed kid", scared out of his wits, if I get the message correctly, continued to talk to his GF all the way until he decided to attack someone who, for all intents and purposes, was just exercising his freedom to walk wherever he wants, just like the kid himself?
For example: both you and I are free to walk in a forest (say, a BLM forest, to be clear.) I follow you everywhere, trailing you by 10 yards. Will you attack me? Note that I have no obligation to even acknowledge your existence, unless you are a credentialed LEO. What would be the right thing to do, outside of [rightfully] declaring the stalker a class A hole? Would calling police be one of the options? Would pointing a gun at the follower be an option? If you shoot, what would be your explanation why you shot and killed an unarmed kid who was just looking at the squirrel?
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Wednesday August 03 2016, @07:00PM
So you propose letting any "unarmed kid" to a place where only a thief has a reason to come uninvited? And your example of an "innocent" trespasser was, just to prove my point, a thief.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 05 2016, @05:15PM
No, I'm 100% against the "stand your ground" laws, but they do exist.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:52AM
Well, he was shot. That counts as something happening.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:33AM
It's dark, nobody ever comes there unless they mean to steal his weed or shag his girl - and those with that intent usually come armed.
He thought he saw a handgun, they were waving something around that's for sure. Skeered n fearin for his life, he shot in self defense.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:27AM
What makes you think that the only people playing Pokemon are kids? And assuming that they are old enough to be out without their parents, they should also have been taught to respect other people's property.
However, I do think that using firearms to deter people from trespassing is taking the whole thing too far. The firearm should be the last resort and only then to protect life - not the first.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:35PM
1) This is America we're talking about. He should call the cops...so THEY can come point a gun at the kids and probably shoot them too? What difference does it really make who holds the gun and who pulls the trigger?
2) Police in America have absolutely no obligation to protect any citizen. They are under no obligation to respond even if you've got a court order (such as a restraining order) against the person you feel threatened by. Even if that person threatens your life. In fact, they even have a legal right to stand there and watch while a known, wanted criminal tries to stab you right in front of them. Such cases have gone to court multiple times, and the police always win. They don't ever have to respond, they don't ever have to help you. They don't exist to protect people, they exist to enforce the will of the state. If you need protection that's your own problem as far as they're concerned.
3) As the saying goes -- "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:25AM
It depends a great deal where you are. Around here you can legally be within the flood plain as the state owns all the bodies of water and as such anybody is allowed in them. It's a bit difficult in some cases like where private owners own all the land around that, but the state does own the lake itself.
Shooting people who are on your property whether or not you're legally entitled to is a really foolish idea if they aren't actually in your home or breaking into your home. How certain are you that your use of force is legally authorized? How certain are you that you understand the applicable laws and case history to make that decision?
Bottom line is that shooting random people who happen to be on your property is a foolish idea and you're likely to be convicted of murder if they're not actively breaking other laws.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:21AM
Do you know [what] the color purple on a fence post means?
I looked it up: it takes the place of a "no trespassing" sign. What a clever way to mitigate the effects of illiteracy!
http://www.geocachingaustin.com/reference/purplepaint-texasnotrespassingmarking [geocachingaustin.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:34AM
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:45AM
According to the page I linked,
Purple was chosen due to the fact that even people who are color blind will see it, only will see it as being darker and more visible [...]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:14PM
In Texas, Florida, and a few other places it's perfectly legal to shoot trespassers. Only the people who live in those states can affect those laws, unless the feds pass a law that supersedes it.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:53PM
Yes, I was helpfully stopped and informed by some hillbilly in Alabama that he was legally permitted to shoot and kill me for turning into his driveway to turn around, but that he decided to only give me a warning instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:58PM
"In Texas, Florida, and a few other places it's perfectly legal to shoot trespassers."
See how long that lasts after a few kids are shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:14PM
If the "innocent" kids are trespassing then they aren't innocent, they're trespassing. If they trespass in the gun-crazy US, then it's their own fault for ignoring the probability that the owner of the property might be prepared to defend it.