AlanOfTheBerg wrote:top_gun_de wrote:You don't need a workaround when you are not breaking the law at all. It is quite frustrating to repeat this so often...
We understand. But what many users on this thread don't understand is that Waze must come to this realization/understanding on their own. It's their company and while you and others may believe (know) it is foolish, what they have done, Waze has to make this decision based on legal advice from their legal team or consultants. If, after study and review, they determine cameras can be put back legally, they will. We just have to wait. Working with lawyers can take months just to figure out the simplest of things sometimes.
There are even two answers to your opinion:
1. There is a difference between a normal company with paying customers and paid suppliers and a company that builds on Web 2.0-effects as a main factor in their manufacturing process.
2. Waze should understand that the jurisdictional systems and codes in most countries are quite different. The term "international law" is something that keeps amazing me, as there is nothing binding between judicial systems except some international treaties from WTO and the like with limited scope. If they need counsel on the German law system, there are quite a lot of domestic lawyers, and there is even a formalized specialization for the matters at hand. There are also a lot of firms that specialise in international clients, and give counsel on the specifics in Germany. As soon as I realise that Waze has finally gotten counsel from such a company that specializes in "Verkehrsrecht", I am confident that matters are handled in the appropriate way.
Until then, I will stubbornly stand on my little soap box in Speaker's Corner, thank you very much