Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Sued Over Privacy Invasion On Street View

Posted by Soulskill on from the by-boring-couple dept.

mikkl666 writes "A couple from Pittsburgh has sued Google because a photo of their house appeared on Google Street View. They are demanding in excess of $25,000 to make up for the 'mental suffering' and the diminished value of their home. Their street is apparently marked with a 'Private Road' sign, and they claim that putting a photo of their property online is an 'intentional and/or grossly reckless invasion' of their privacy. Google, on the other hand, claims that this lawsuit is pointless since anyone can ask them to have pictures removed without legal action. We've previously discussed some of the privacy concerns surrounding Street View."

11 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. Don't go there. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's what makes this case different than the other StreetView suits... the Google van wasn't supposed to be on this road in the first place. A private road means that the owners of the road take no government funding or care for it, and therefore get to decide who they'll allow on it. Google wasn't wanted, so there's the problem.

  2. Who's fault is it? by celerityfm · · Score: 3, Informative

    I dunno it seems like a case of bad judgment on the driver of the mapping vehicle. If you look at the pictures it seems like they drove right up to their garage, taking pictures the whole time.

    It also seems like provider of the maps is also at fault, if you follow along on Google maps you can see that the street appears to extend all the way to their garage.

    But, there doesn't seem to be any "private road" labeling on the map nor was their any sign visible when I followed the street via Streetview to their house (though they did delete the offending pictures, so maybe the sign was there?)

    Regardless though, I would expect that the drivers of these vehicles would know better then to keep the pictures they took of a property while parked in front of a garage.

    --
    ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
  3. Re:I don't like that defense by mmcuh · · Score: 3, Informative

    asking someone for permission should happen BEFORE acting

    Yeah, that is just so feasible when what you're doing is taking pictures of EVERY SINGLE BUILDING AND HOUSE IN A LARGE CITY. Well maybe not every single one, but you get my point..

    Then maybe they shouldn't do that?
  4. Private Roads by qbzzt · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Texas a private road is defined as one maintained privately, as opposed to a public road that is maintained by a government (municipal, county, state, or federal). Usually the residents who use the road share the responsibility to maintain it.

    I assume in Pennsylvania it's the same. If you don't want people driving on a road, you need to mark it as such. Put a gate, or a sign forbidding unauthorized access.

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
  5. Re:Diminished Value? by DRACO- · · Score: 3, Informative

    Blah, have they even looked at street view? The images obtained are a joke. Unless the vehicle drive right up within 15 ft of something the images are grossly unfocused beyond 15 ft.

    --
    Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.
  6. Re:Diminished Value? by mikael · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you look at Google maps, you can see quite clearly that their house is at the end of a private road. The Google road crew drove onto private property, continuing to take high resolution photographs before turning round and going back the way they came.

    A road sign clearly indicated that this was a private road. Maybe Google's road crew didn't understand English, took a wrong turning, or their maps were out of date. Since they took photographs every 10 metres or so, having a photograph of their property is not going to affect its value by any significant amount.

    This really does amount to trespass and invasion of privacy. Any individual is free to walk the streets of their neighborhood and take photographs, so long as they don't enter private property. But as soon as they wander into their neighbors driveways and gardens, neighbors would be justified in calling the Police, and getting them to be given a warning or to be arrested.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  7. They Should Sue The County Too by MrNonchalant · · Score: 4, Informative

    Allegheny County has a real estate assessment website which has pictures of every house in the county. Including the Borings:
    http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Image.asp?CurrBloLot=0823E00136000000&Street=Oakridge

  8. Re:Diminished Value? by schon · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you look at Google maps, you can see quite clearly that their house is at the end of a private road. No. I looked at Google maps, and all I can see quite clearly is that the house is at the end of a road. There is no indication that it's private at all.

    A road sign clearly indicated that this was a private road. Really? I couldn't see that sign from the link you provided.

    This really does amount to trespass and invasion of privacy. You haven't proven that, but assuming that there is a sign, and the mappers were guilty of tresspassing, how the hell do you explain the absurd charges?

    If this really was about tresspassing, you'd think that the property owners would have sued for that, instead of this "mental anguish" and "reduced property value" bullshit.
  9. Re:Diminished Value? by mikael · · Score: 5, Informative

    The UK has similar "Right to Roam" legislation which applies to many pathways and scenic areas. It's something to consider when buying a house or even office space in a business park. You find out that the local residents use your driveway or car-park as a short cut to the local supermarket because 1800 years, a Roman goat-herder went to court to maintain a right-of-way between the town market and the local pasture.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  10. Re:Diminished Value? by mapinguari · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are.

  11. Re:Diminished Value? by antibryce · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Search.asp

    Allegheny County already put all this information online, years ago.

    Also I'm not sure how you can "clearly see" it's a private road. Since Google posted detailed pictures of the area you would think we could see this "private road" sign somewhere, no? I just used street view to pan around and all I could find was a single wooden post with "Oakridge Ln" painted on it (where it meets Reis Run Road.) In fact you can still follow Oakridge all the way up to their house before google says "This image is no longer available" and still see no posted sign.

    Here's another picture of their house:

    http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Image.asp?CurrBloLot=0823E00136000000&Street=oakridge

    The people claim Allegheny County took their picture from a public road which, judging by the picture, is the same road Google was on.

    Also how's this for invasion of privacy: They bought their 1 bedroom house in 2006 for $163,000 and it sits on 1.82 acres of land. It gets a D+ rating. It has no AC, 1 bathroom, and 984 sq. ft. of living area.

    That's all available on Allegheny County's assessment website. Along with a nice picture.

    My guess is they saw this on Google, ran to Home Depot for a private road sign, and decided to cash in.