I'm HARDLY one of those whining brown-nosing types when it comes to spy photos (I've had disagreemets with some people including Red over this before).

But I absolutely agree with Jim Dunne and Brenda Priddy that there are standards, and sneeking pictures out of GM's design studio is purely wrong, and I even said so before. I have recieved images that I could have posted for everyone's enjoyment, but don't because either I was trusted not to, or because they were obviously from inside whichever company's buildings.

If these pictures are on a website, then (like a Paris Hilton or Pamela Anderson video) someone's already gonna be in trouble over it and once something is already on the internet won't be ever taken back so may as well link it.


If these trucks were on the road, then of course, snap away. If they were visable from outside the compound, or if information on something is readily available via GM's own press releases or news organizations then fair game.

But stealing pictures out of a company is like stealing from someone's home IMO.

You're wrong Redzed, and me of all people is saying this.

 

I don't see a problem with the media snapping pictures when GM is in the final testing stages of their products.(the ones where the cars are mostly covered up) Just don't take pictures of upcoming products that are still in the design stages.

It takes a couple years to develop a new vehicle so it's not like Ford could see the new GMT 900 and copy that design and bring it out 6 months later around the same time GM brings theirs out.

 

Rule of thumb:

If you can see it from any public location: Fair Game.

If you have to break in, or have special access from a non-public area to take it: You are doing something improper.

 

Hilarious that this myth still lives on.

 

And I thought I was safe by having redzed on my Ignore list, then you guys all go and quote him, and I STILL have to look at his ramblings. Thanks guys.

 

I think you're confusing "personal information" with a "paranoid and counterproductive corporate policy."

 

It is called industrial espionage, and it is illegal. Why don't you try sneaking into a Lockheed Martin aerospace R&D facility and take some photos, let us know what happens. They test some stuff about 1.5hrs. North of Las Vegas around Groom Dry Lake, go try that out.

 

I didn't refer to you by name, and I wasn't thinking of you specifically when I made the comment. However, you've played games on more than one occasion. If I might paraphase some of your past statements........

"I know something you don't know, but I'm not telling because I want to protect my sources. You can read about it in the next issue of some hot rod magazine that's only sold in grocery stores."

Jim Dunne's work hasn't been very impressive in years. Of course, I can still remember when a certain photographer...ahem.... managed to take spyphotos of a very complete GM product.....inside a GM facility......3 years before the product hit the streets.

Actually, some of the "Paris Hilton" and "Pamela Anderson" videos you refered to were actually stolen from the celebrities' homes. I also would take exception to your attitude that "once something is already on the internet won't be ever taken back so may as well link it."

Of course, I doubt that many people will find the GMT-900 pictures to be nearly "interesting" as the average "Paris Hilton Home Video."


You're welcome to your opinion.

 

Explain.

 

Find an example where a manufacturer has actually lost sales because of a pre-introduction "leak" of product information or product images - assuming that the product was competitive to begin with?

 

You know that's not something that is quantifiable.

 

Ask ANY dealer who sells Corvettes....C5 sales tanked when the C6 pictures were leaked.

What we're talking about is PRIVATE information that has been stolen...corporate espionage is illegal.

 

red zed seems to be an expert on making statements based on non-existant, non-quantifiable, "facts" without providing any references, just based off his 'expertise' that magically appears out of nowhere when needed.

 

So if someone took a spy pic of a 5th Gen. none of you guys would be glad somebody was sneaky enough to get it????????

TONY

 

He asked YOU to explain why it's counter productive, so perhaps you can find quantifiable reference to when a premature product leak helped sales?