Slashdot Mirror
Google Sued Over Privacy Invasion On Street View
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."
I just love it when people grab any occasion to try to sue as much money as they can from large (and rich) companies, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. A chance these companies also have dozens of lawyers for whenever that happens.
You just got troll'd!
Telling people that there is no damage because you can ask for something to be removed is silly IMO, that doesn't cover the time it was up until the request was followed and I dislike the idea of opt-out in general, asking someone for permission should happen BEFORE acting, not just acting and telling people they have to come to you to revoke their permission.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
I don't like opt-out memberships. The ability for companies to get away with opt-out usually comes from legislation. Not simple company choice.
Google never ceases to teach me new things. I guess it's okay to do impolite things as long as I remind the victim that they could have asked me to stop at any time.
How long until google is indexing my underwear drawer?
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...
Presumably they see some of the value in their house being in the fact that it is on a "private" road. Google's images demonstrate how little that is really worth, thus lowering the value of their property.
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
You have no expectation of privacy with regard to Google Street View photographs, or any other "shutterbug" snapping pictures on your street, provided the photos were taken from public property, and were not done in such a way as to grossly invade your space (telephoto lenses into your bathroom window, for example).
Here's a good article that points to guidelines from people who go to court to defend their members' rights to do what is in their rights (Google's Street View team would be wise to join up):
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
From what I understand about the equipment and methods in use by the Google Street View project, I wouldn't expect them to be in violation of the "zoom lenses" provisions in any "invasion" statute in these states.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Should they not seek to prosecute Google for trespassing then?
~Dan
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
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.
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
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
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.
And there is no equivalent to remove your house from their satellite stuff if you so desire.
Not unless you are, say, the US Government, that is. Apparently their right to privacy extends to not having photographs of their facilities publicly available.
There should be a constitutional rule that says no government or corporate body may ever have a right not universally available to an individual citizen. If something is important enough for the guys with power and money to protect, it's important enough to protect it for everyone else, too.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
After seeing the map, I think the owners have a point -- the private road is essentially their driveway, and they have a line of trees screening their house from outside view. These people want privacy, and Google violated it. I don't know if it's worth $25,000, but on top of the incident where the Google Street View van drove onto a military base in contravention of Google's rules, I think this is a sign that the people taking the pictures are inadequately trained and lack common sense.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
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
I did a project more than a decade ago with EMTs and other first responders about vehicle INS systems ( before GPS became ubiquitous ). The drivers jokingly ( or maybe not ) noted that the eventual real effect of people that had overgrown vegitation, concealed drives, locked gates, non-existent or faded curb numbers, missing or angled house numbers and unlit or burned out porch lights was that response time effectively doubles or triples with a corresponding effect on medical survival rates. As society becomes more dependent of spatial technologies like StreetView, a similar counter-survival friction will occur as Fedex, Dominos, and EMTs are delayed by uncertain spots in their data. So that EMT's opinion was that eventually these 'hiding' people would be selected against and be left in the shallow end of the gene pool.
Remember last month when a Danish journalist was talking on his cell phone and wandered into a woman's lawn? She came after him with a gun of all things!
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
They are.
So we should stop caring because the photos they're taking of the inside and outside of people's houses and using for profit are low quality?
Thank goodness for that, I thought it might be a problem.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
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.
I don't know about the legal status of a "private road" but if I'm on public property, I can take a picture of your house as long as it can be seen from public property. It's not against the law. The only things that are exempt from this are government and military locations.
Remember Google did this intentionally to ruin this specific family's privacy. Or at least these people say Google did it intentionally. What Google should do is remove the house, but in it's place put an ad.
Can I bum a sig?
I used to live at the end of a dead end road, and my roommate (whom was purchasing the home) actually owned 1/2 of the road from a telephone pole back to the fence/property line.
We had lots of signs up stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY" "NO TRESPASSING" "Violators will be shot, survivors will be shot again." On a few occasions right after we moved in, we had police patrols in our neighborhood (due to "gang" activity, but that's another story) and they would turn around in our driveway.
The cops were cool, and eventually let us know those signs didn't mean much, unless we actually owned the road, luckily we had the paperwork showing property lines. After that the cops wouldn't (couldn't?) use the very end of the road to turn around in, unless we had personally talked to that officer and gave him our permission. Heck, we let them use our property to conduct a few stake outs too.
So if these people live on a "Private" road, they better be ready to prove they own that land. If not, I say Google had every right to take some pictures.
Who owns what in "road law" in most jurisdictions is fairly complicated. A so called "private road" could be anything from an abandoned public road to a road that was built by the landowner himself or another adjoining land owner who has given that landowner an easement.
Even if the road itself is totally owned by the landowner, whether they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from photographs on that road is a question that is probably undecided or unclear. Even if the answer is yes, the issue of damages is probably laughable. A generic photo of a house on a road? I'd give them $100. If the photo had a picture of them "doing it" in the window, maybe $25,000 would be justifiable.
If you want to read more, check out this link: The Pennsylvania Legislatorâ€(TM)s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006), Road Law Basics Chapter: http://tinyurl.com/6hvvnk
For the most part you are also allowed to take photos of government and (some military) locations. from http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf [read the whole paper for the details that I've ommited]
The General Rule
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.
Some Exceptions to the Rule
There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such. Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers