Slashdot Mirror
Google Says Complete Privacy Does Not Exist
schliz writes "In a submission to court, Google is arguing that in the modern world there can be no expectation of privacy. Google is being sued by a Pennsylvania couple after their home appeared on Google's Street View pages. The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property." Here is our previous story about Google Street View privacy issues.
military installations, the CIA, the NSA, and other sensitive areas- just to see if there really is no privacy in the US.
I repeat: luddites.
Fata viam invenient.
Shouldnt the couple sue google for trespass, too?
In any case, how does being featured on street view lower property value?
YES THE LAW DOES APPLY TO GOOGLE
I hope they win. Privacy does exist. Get bent I don't want you in my house.
Google is more or less correct. If people really want "true privacy" in today's world, then they really have to never leave their house, never access the internet, never buy anything with a credit card or debit card, and don't forget your tinfoil hat. However, knowing a little bit more about this case, if the property owners in question did have a 'private property' sign up in front of the road that Google went down, then they did trespass onto their property to take the photos. If that's true, then this case is closed. Plain and simple. You don't need any fancy shmancy explanations and definitions of "privacy" here. If there was no sign, then Google did nothing wrong.
This is what starts to happen when people don't bother to protect their privacy: the notion of privacy itself starts to vanish. If this argument flies, privacy will become a thing of the past, and people who to protect their own privacy will just be labeled as "paranoid weirdos."
Palm trees and 8
There is no privacy in a police state. The One World Government is coming.
Oday ouyay antway otay ayplay away amegay?
I hope the Court gives Google a big punch in the face in the form of an exemplary fine.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
If they don't want to appear on aerial photos, they should cover their roof and garden with something like blankets or a large balloon or so.
The summary and TFA are short on details but it seems that Google's arguing that since satellite photos are permissible, there can't be an expectation of privacy wrt street-level photos.
There's a big difference in the detail available in most sat photos versus Street View. It'll be interesting to see what gets considered private or public. Currently, it seems it's okay if you can tell I have a black car but not that my front door's red.
In the case of military, CIA, NSA, &tc. there are fences, gates, guards, dogs and suchlike preventing your access to what they don't want pictures of.
That said, if these people *really* cared about privacy, they could have put up a gate across the road to ensure no-one just wandered in.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
If the photo had been obtained from space then there is no case. But if a google car drove down a private street that was marked private property then they do have a good case for trespass. Normally such roads are gated though.
Wouldn't that be "foogle?"
And took pictures. Would they allow it?
"Today's satellite image technology means that even in today's desert, complete privacy does not exist"
As I understand it, Street View is not captured by satellite? From the same article:
The Street View program aims to photograph every street in the world and place the photographs online. A team of specially converted cars with cameras mounted on the roof are in constant action around the world.
Once again, why are they arguing about satellite imaging. That's not how Street View works.
We should collect the home addresses of Google employees (preferably at the top level) and install some webcams ourselves.
Or hire some papparazi to annoy them.. would finally give Britney a break as well.
Let's see what happens when google street view tries to do this in Texas, where you can legally shoot someone for encroaching on private property to perform "criminal mischief"... I'm sure they'll agree that taking photos on private property counts as criminal mischief in Texas, assuming it's clearly posted as private property.
stuff |
Since they were on private property - they should've just taken their guns (every American owns at least 2, right?) and shoot the Google car - it is, after all, trespassing.
I'm quite sure they wouldn't have returned with their puny little van.
"Google Says Complete Privacy Does Not Exist On Google"
I really don't see that Google has a leg to stand on here.
I'll agree completely that there's no expectation of privacy in a public place. However, google seems intent on redefining "public".
The street, of course, is a public place. I have no problems with streetview most of the time.
My cousin's garden is surrounded by high trees and can't be overlooked by any of the neighbouring houses. Does she have a reasonable expectation of privacy there? She's quite upset that she's grainily visible in her bikini.
But driving up and publishing photos of someone else's land, clearly marked as "private property" is not acceptable. That the couple are "far from hermits" is totally irrlelvant; google (or their representatives) trespassed then took and published photos of private property.
I assume that google knows this, but is terrified that conceding this case will open he floodgates for countless other people with similar complaints.
I'd like to put up security cameras around my house. I talked to my county police for advice on the proper ways to go about doing this. I'm not allowed to point them at someone else's property at all (without their permission), not even if it's visible from public view. I can point them at my own property, and I can point them at public property. I'm also not allowed to record any audio at all, not even if it's pointed at my own stuff.
Google have themselves created a situation where there can be no expectation of privacy.
Its akin to me taking a photo of someone in the street, sticking it on the web and then, when they complain, point out that their picture is widely available so they cant expect privacy. Once that genie is out of the bottle its *very* hard to put back....
In a submission to court, Google is arguing that in the modern world there can be no expectation of privacy because of Google .
there, fixed that for ya google
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'd like to google map the place and see what it's like (and what I can see)
FTA: "A team of specially converted cars with cameras mounted on the roof are in constant action around the world."
Thanks for warming the globe while you trespass and invade privacy, Google.
Did they just totally ignore their motto to argue this?
So if I sit in front of Google's NYC office and pick random employees to follow around with a camera or hire a team of paparazzi to chase Larry Page and Sergey Brin around everywhere they go there shouldn't be a problem?
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
First IANAL, and the laws vary from state to state but here is my take, as being a hunter and running into these situations.
1. Private property sign if placed off the road, means you cant trespass off the road onto the fenced in land.
2. Driving up the above road is not illegal. Even if there is a sign that says "private drive" as long as there was no gate. If there was a gate, and you breached the gate to drive up the "private drive" then you would have trespassed.
3. Making a film of property marked private property is not illegal. Filming off a private drive that is not gated is not illegal.
Now that I said that, I think it would have been proper, to go ahead and go up to the house and ask them if it was ok, it would only have taken a minute. But the act of driving up the ungated road and filming while they were driving on it will not be found trespass.
Take your meds, boy. The moderator was right. You came in here anonymously to slashdot and slandered and insulted everyone here.
If you did that in a bar (although I'm sure you're not old enough to go into one) you'd get your sorry ass kicked and probably thrown in jail afterwards.
FOAD, troll.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
While I believe private property is privately controlled, one has to wonder: How do they determine who gets to use the private road?
Is there another way to reach the home? What if a process server needed to serve papers on them?
There's too little information in TFA.
If complete privacy doesn't exist then Google's board of directors should put web cameras into their bathrooms and broadcast 24/7....
I have nothing to hide, but nothing to share either...
If you want to boycott Google, just stop clicking on their ads. You can still use the engine they won't earn any money from it. If you see an interesting ad, just copy/past the url address. Plus, the websites won't have to pay for the ads (who knows, maybe someday they'll reward users that do not click on adwords)
We should also put Google car alerts. When one is detected we should put "anti-google" pictures in front of the camera. Another idea could be to find a (non-obscene) picture that Goolge does not have the right to reproduce on the Internet (for instance, with an appropriate copyright).
Stop hiding, make noise!
I think I speak for many of us oldtimers when I say:
GOOGLE! GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Fuck you. If there's no such thing as privacy in the modern world, it's because fuckwit corps think they can do whatever they damn well please. Way to reveal yourself as one of them.
That's a quote from "The State of the Art", a short story by Iain M. Banks where a Culture contact ship visits Earth. One of them is visiting a colleague in an apartment in Paris, and sees a sign saying "No photographs allowed". The idea of owning the light and imposing restrictions on its use is just preposterous to her.
If you did that in a bar (although I'm sure you're not old enough to go into one) you'd get your sorry ass kicked and probably thrown in jail afterwards.
Of course, if it were a slashdot bar, he'd be pelted with pocket protectors and told to "MOOOOOVE!" repeatedly.
nah.. we'd rather slit your wrists... might make at least one AnonCoward STFU
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Basically what you're arguing there is that because so many people can violate your privacy, then you don't have any expectation of privacy in the first place. And that your only recourse if you want "true privacy" is to never be in a situation where someone else can rape it for you. Which seems to me like complete bullshit.
Let's apply that kind of reasoning to other kinds of interactions:
- everyone can bash in your door and steal your computer, so you don't have any expectations against breaking and entering. If you want to have any, build a bunker under a mountain.
- anyone can shoot you, so you don't have a right to life. If you want it, well, see the bunker idea above and wear a bullet proof vest with titanium plates when you have to go outside.
- you _could_ get shipped to Guantanamo or, in one case, Syria for a bit of waterboarding and such, for something you said. So you might as well get over the ideas of rights like "freedom of speech" or "habeas corpus". If you don't like it, well, just make sure you never say or do anything that your government dislikes.
Etc.
I hope you can see the problem.
We already have a bunch of laws granting you various rights, precisely _because_ it's so easy for others to violate them. You have a granted freedom of speech precisely _because_ it would be trivial for someone to restrict it for you. You have the "habeas corpus" right, precisely _because_ it would be trivial for someone to lock you up with no formal accusation or judgment or any chance to defend yourself. (And indeed it was the norm in the middle ages and it still is in some parts of the world.) Precisely _because_ it would be trivial for someone to kill you, we have laws against murder. Etc.
So it seems to me pretty stupid to argue that, because an ISP or bank can and often will rape your privacy when you use their services, you have no expectation of privacy there. And/or that if you want any, you should live in a bunker without Internet or banking. We didn't apply that kind of free-for-all every-man-for-himself approach in any other domain. Why _would_ privacy be that readily given up just because someone else can violate it?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"Google is arguing that in the modern world there can be no expectation of privacy."
Translation:
Google is arguing that in the modern world that 'evil' is a relative term.
In some places I can tell what model car you have. Sometimes when I'm browsing I see cars that catch my eye, and sometimes I then get to see them in real life. I can guess the models with good accuracy.
One I thought was either a 70s Charger or Mustang turned out to be a Charger.
One that I thought was either a C5/C6 Corvette turned out to be a C6.
In my experience, if you want privacy get a silver SUV or van, they either turn up as a glare spot or blend in with the pavement, and they're hard to tell apart.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If people really want "true privacy" in today's world, then they really have to never leave their house, never access the internet, never buy anything with a credit card or debit card, and don't forget your tinfoil hat.
By the same argument, one could argue that if people want not to be mugged then they should not leave their home without an armed escort. In reality, most people consider mugging to be socially unacceptable, so we write laws to make it illegal and then the justice system punishes those few who do it.
There is no reason we cannot do the same for privacy. The fact that today's technology has reached the point where it is economic to conduct mass surveillance and build enormous databases does not mean we have to accept people doing it, any more than the fact that today's technology permits us to kill another human at large distance with a rifle means we condone murder or the fact that today's technology allows us to drive at over 100mph means we condone doing it past a school as kids are going home for the day.
The natural instinct to want privacy has evolved over countless generations, and there are good reasons for it on many levels. On the small scale, everyone makes mistakes that are best forgotten. On a much larger scale, it has major implications for the balance of power between the individual and the state or other groups (such as corporations, in today's society).
When someone from Google, or any other government or corporate body, says something like "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy", they just mean they would prefer that their behaviour remains legally unrestricted regardless of how abusive the people might consider it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
>>"The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property."
Do mail carriers blindfold themselves before stopping there? Are firetrucks allowed in?
Does putting up a "private road" sign mean no one can drive down that road? Did these people put a locked gate at the entrance to that road?
Absolute privacy would mean invisibility.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
So by Google's own argument, anyone is free to walk onto Google property (or that of any of it's employee's or board members), and photograph whatever you like. Or even enter their buildings since privacy to them is only an "abstract idea".
Google is a publicly traded company and as such here's what's important to them.....
Making money for their stockholders.
In fact since they are publicly traded, they should change their motto to "We do less evil than everyone else". This is just one more backlash of several future backlashes now that the Google lovefest is winding down.
Google is going to do what is best in their corporate interest.
Surprised? Don't be. It's business
"Your honour, my clients knocked on the gate and shouted 'WHERE'S YOUR ROBOTS.TXT?' three times. When the plaintiffs didn't answer, that's when my clients opened the gate and took pictures of everything. What's wrong with that? Nothing! I rest my case."
If their private property does not have a gate blocking it off from the road or a "private road" sign then there is no clear indication that the sign itself is applying to the road or the property to the right/left of it. There are ton's of private property signs next to a major highway on both sides of it. In this case the highway is obviously not a private road. It is not illegal to photograph private property from a public road.
I did a quick bit of research. The laws that cover this vary quite a bit. The maximum fine I could find is 250$ and 15 days in jail. Which would be placed upon the people who actually trespassed.
Reading on the New York government website, the requirements also include size of signs required, spacing, and wording.
In addition, road and navigable waterways can be traversed, but as an example using a boat up a river on private property means you cant fish on it, but can travel on it.
So it probably would be safe to assume you can drive up a private drive, but cant hunt, or otherwise bother wildlife, animals, or any other thing while on the road. I do not think filming falls in this category.
In addition, from what I read, it would "appear" to be if you want a road not be traveled by people "other than persons on government assignments" to not be traveled on by the public, in addition to saying "Private Property" it must be marked "NO TRESPASS"
Privacy is not a "right". Your only right is to keep your information private, but you do not have a right *to* privacy.
In this case, it is a matter of trespassing and should be treated as such.
\u262D = \u5350
Google: I am above the law!! [the lock falls forward, and he dabs some SPOOGE gel to put it back in place] Mr. Chef, I'm afraid you leave me no alternative. We're going to sue you.
Owner: Sue me?! You came onto my private property, clearly marked, took pictures, put them on the internet, and you are going to sue me?!
Google: Yes. I suggest you get a real good lawyer. We'll have the best in the business.
http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/southpark/season2/southpark-214.htm
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Google's submission discussed "complete privacy", not mere "privacy".
Clearly, we have rights to photograph private property if we do it from a public vantage point. The fact that this house is privately held has no bearing here.
The issue, it seems, is the impact of the "private road" sign. Does it mean permission must be granted before anyone, at any time, can use that road? Does the law argue that the "private road" sign compels all others to stay off that road?
And, if I was Google, I'd look into the degree to which that "private road" and that property receive any kind of public support. Are police allowed on it to provide protection? The fire department? Are there beneficial tax consequences involved for someone maintaining a private road? Are any public monies used in any way in relation to that road?
And, can the road's owners prove that they have maintained their privacy claim by prohibiting all others from using the road?
BTW, a driveway with a "no trespassing" sign is not the same as a "private road" with no such sign. You may call the police and your lawyer, but asserting a privacy claim is not the same as proving it.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
As I was modded down as flamebait by an angry fucktard who sheepishly follows the communists fucktard taco, brokeback neil, RMS Titanic AKA Stallman, and Fucktard Linanus the fudgepacking linsux creator.
Just because you anger someone doesn't always mean you are right. Judging by the colourful metaphors you use I'd say you are a 12 year old who gets a kick from using such words.
If Microsoft did this, you would be stating "M$ is teh evil." The only reason you fucktarded shitdot sheeple are defending Fuckle over this is they are teh defenders of communist open-sores.
Not everyone on Slashdot is a Microsoft hater like twitter. Some use both GNU/Linux and Windows while some use Windows exclusively. It does appear, though, you do have the same type of hatred towards Google, slashdot, open-source, and GNU/Linux that twitter does towards Microsoft and closed-source software.
Why don't you communist fucktards go and slit your fucking wrists.
GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED MODPOINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!
Oh yeah, telling someone to slit their wrists is very mature and intelligent. NOT!
Well given that they are censoring free speech, it is given that they don't care one thing about privacy. They really should change their logo to "Don't be evil, except to be greedy"
I repeat: sheep.
It doesn't matter if it's google or someone else. Having a private road can be an investment in privacy.
Google, trying to make money for themselves, is damaging their property, or at least the value they perceive, due to the perceived privacy that is now destroyed. And they do so against the law.
What is so wrong about trying to get a compensation?
...does not equal a lack of any privacy. In this case, Google pushed the bounds, and given that they should have had a team of lawyers with expertise in the laws of every state they planned to operate in...they really dug their own hole. In some states, they might even be worse off than in Pennsylvania, which at least doesn't make it a Constitutional right to privacy, though they do have rights to address damages to property, reputation and the like, and there probably are specific laws dealing with driving onto a private road. Can't say I know what they are, but hopefully their lawyer does.
Oh well, this just goes to show you, technology is nice, but sometimes you can end up hurting people.
In Emo Russia, they would punish the AC by slitting their OWN wrists!!
The rules of trespass are dependent on the state you reside in. The issue here is how the rules apply to rural property which is different in some ways than urban property due to the cost of putting up a fence on a property that could be at least 40 acres.
Most states require a sign that states either "PRIVATE PROPERTY" or "NO TRESPASSING" that is of a certain height and width and includes the name and address of a contact person. In some states, this sign is to only be posted at the entrance of the property (such as New Hampshire) and in other states, it is to be posted at intervals around the property (such as NY that requires a sign every 40 ft).
Once the property is posted, it becomes the responsibility of the party without permission to enter the property to keep off. Once there is evidence that they were on the property and the property owner can prove it, you can be charged with trespass.
Also, you cannot claim that you cannot read or do not understand English. The signs are usually a special color (usually yellow with black lettering). This has been an issue with the Hmong community in this part of the country.
This will get more interesting however because as Google tries to photograph more rural regions of the country where the map may mark a road but the road itself is private property. Hell, even some suburban areas have streets that are private property (here, condo developments and apartment complexes have private streets which are signed a different color than public streets).
True, there is no expectation of privacy from a public street but once you hit a "No Trespassing" sign, there is an expectation of privacy beyond that sign.
BTW, the air rights for a property is generally 200ft. You can put an antenna on your property up to 200ft without notification to the FAA. It is obviously lower near airports.
When this case first came out, I saw a news article with the actual photos.
Their "private property" sign was a small, dirty thing on a utility pole, and their "driveway" is very interesting - it starts as a public, gravel road and then, while continuing, suddenly turns into a private road. The GoogleVan didn't turn from a marked, paved street into a driveway - they continued down a public street and it BECAME private all of a sudden.
The mapping software they were using identified the entire street (even the private section) as public road.
From the looks of the photos, the GoogleVan then got to these people's house and turned around.
So, yeah - not the best thing ever, and there WERE some pretty close pictures, but at this time Google did have a takedown process for pictures - they could've just quietly filed a request instead of suing.
Also, in the comments for that article, someone found their house listed and photographed on a municipal or a real estate site, so everything Google photographed and more was already public on the internet.
This issue seems split between two camps, the "I can wonder around and film/take pictures of anything as long as you dont suffer any undue harm", and the absolute "get off my lawn!" folks. I think there's validity to both, but I'm siding with the home owners.
1. The property is marked private.
2. Street view drivers may not have seen anything posted, but being reasonably smart individuals (to operate the equipment and drive at the same time), they should have known not to enter an unmarked driveway because usually those lead to private residences.
3. Yes satellite imagery does take away a level of privacy, but those were and mostly still are government run installations who sub license to private industry. There is still a zoom cap in place. Street view breeches that distance limitation.
And the twist, "who owns the images". If the drive is marked private and Google illegally entered, and the took the intellectual property of the home owners, they can and should pay damages. Think of paparazzi and famous people. If the papz get a zoom lens at take pictures of that actor/actress in their private homes, they get the bejesus sued out of them. They regularly lose. But the funding from the images negates the cost of litigation. So they keep doing it. Google may make the same strategic decision, but they still should pay.
And, why fight this? Are they trying to tarnish the Google do "no" evil/Don't be evil image. They should admit to this being a mistake, compensate the home owners in the same range as images of non-celeb/z-listers, and call it a day. The images were already removed so the home owners cant claim they are still being harmed.
"Texas"...well..."I've never seen that movie"...exactly!
if this is how Google is going to play it, I say fuck Google. I'm done with them and all their bullshit. "don't be evil" my ass.
Complete privacy or even general privacy is not a right in the US and it shouldn't be.
Privacy should be protected for certain instances. Privacy for medical records, some privacy on privately owned property where basic measures are taken (going into a room and closing the blinds etc.).
One problem is that the meaning of privacy has changed. It seems to in the past have been more toward referring to the individual and self determination-private property. It used to be more about control. Where-as today it seems to have shifted more towards anonymity and being unobserved and unrecorded by others-private information, private time.
This article is a bit thin on details on what went wrong. Personally I believe that if the picture is taken from a public place then it's fair game. If you really want your privacy go home and pull up all your curtains. I mean think about famous people, they're often hounded by the press in public. If we think that's okay why shouldn't it apply to ourselves? Also if you have a private road, you might want to consider putting a gate on it since that would be harder to miss. I mean in all honestly do you drive around all paranoid looking for "Private Road" signs where you don't expect them? Sheesh, makes you wonder how our world works at all with folks being so paranoid nowadays.
If you do that, you will go to jail.
", despite these efforts, someone trespasses on your property, the best thing to do is to call the sheriff and let them handle the trespasser. If for some reason you cannot have law enforcement intervene, Texas law (Section 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code) allows you to use "reasonable force" to protect your property. Reasonable force includes any force that is not potentially lethal. This would probably include physically blocking the trespasser's entry onto the land and perhaps even showing the trespasser that you have a gun and are prepared to use it if warranted. However, as discussed below, an actual discharge of a firearm, unless clearly not aimed anywhere towards the trespasser, may expose the land owner to unwanted scrutiny by law enforcement."
So if they were stealing something, ya you could shoot. But shooting somebody taking a film will land you in jail.
I would have gone with Google endangering the public (my family or person) by the invasion and then publishing their obtained pictures. There is no legal difference between this type of photography and taking a picture of my house and publishing it on a billboard (ad campaign) for home security with big block letters that say "Don't leave your property unsecured like this." There is a reason they are throwing up privacy, it's because they are trying to frame the case in a way that gives them a leg to stand on.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
this is slashdot
google is still a darling usurper and microsoft is evil, and these attitudes are fixed and unchanging
it's not 2002 anymore darling, maybe you should update your opinion on google
people are happy to pillory microsoft for attitudes plenty of other companies have, because microsoft is the 800 pound gorilla in the room
guess what? 2,000 other companies can have privacy atittudes 800 times worse than google, doesn't fucking matter. why?
because google is the 800 pound gorilla, so we target them
get it?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There is ALWAYS a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless one is cavorting about in public.
This is perhaps the most sinister utterance that I have every heard out of Google.
Do Less Evil, guys. You have gone too far down the wrong road. Turn around.
If they didn't want anyone to see these pictures that "caused them mental suffering and diminished the value of their property," bringing Google to court was a stupid idea. All they did is ensure that the pictures would get huge exposure.
Why didn't they just ask Google to remove the pictures? They would have done it without a fight.
My best guess is that they know this hasn't done anything to their minds or property value. They just want the money.
I mean think about famous people, they're often hounded by the press in public. If we think that's okay why shouldn't it apply to ourselves?
Except in very few people fame carries with it resources not available to hoi polloi, and in most cases fame is something that the famous have worked for... it's choice before chance.
I mean in all honestly do you drive around all paranoid looking for "Private Road" signs where you don't expect them?
If I'm doing something (in my case, launching and chasing hot-air balloons, though the star example of this sort of thing would be hunters) that might lead to upset property owners? Abso-bloody-lutely.
Don't you need DAMAGES to sue someone? Like actual damages, and not make-believe ones that should get you laughed out of court?
Google is just doing a False Dilemma (a.k.a., false dichotomy) fallacy there. The black-and-white thinking or perfect solution fallacy kind, to be precise.
The whole handwaved bullshit depends on accepting essentially that the situation is a black-or-white dichotomy. Either you have _complete_ privacy, or you have no privacy at all.
That's essentially why they pretend that satellite photos are even relevant to a situation where Google's car drove in someone's clearly marked private property, up their driveway, and took photos from in front of their garage. The whole handwaving depends on accepting that privacy is either _complete_, as in, you can make your house invisible to satellites too, or none at all and any yahoo in your car can drive through it and take pics.
And it just isn't that kind of a dichotomy. The whole rest of the world has no problem with shades like that while (A) you can't forbid an airplane to pass above your property, but at the same time (B) forbid someone on foot or in a car from trespassing on it.
More false dichotomies, eh?
The fact that the police or fire department can enter my property, does _not_ mean that anyone else may. The police or fire men can, under certain circumstances, even break down your door and get into your house, but that doesn't apply to anyone else.
Again: it's not that kind of dichotomy, and in fact not a dichotomy at all. There is nothing that says that (A) either something is 100% a bunker and fights off even police and firemen, or (B) it's free for everyone.
No, and no. Any other fabricated bullshit you feel like producing in defense of Google? Oh, right:
This, however, crosses the border from mere stupidity to outright lunacy. I don't know where you even got _that_ monumentally retarded idea.
_Nowhere_ in any definition of private property, does it say that you _must_ prove you kept everyone else off. Private property means it's yours to use as you see fit, as long as it doesn't break other laws.
If it's my house, it means I can choose, at my discretion, who I let in and who I don't. I can invite neighbour X in, but forbid neighnbour Y from entering it. It's mine. I invite who I want. if I don't want Y in my house, it's my sole choice. Period. There is no dichotomy, and I don't have to prove anything about who else was permited or forbidden access. Just the fact that I gave my GF a key, doesn't entitle you too to one.
The same applies to my car, my garden, my driveway, anything else. There is _no_ provision anywhere that it's a strict exclusive or between noone allowed, and everyone allowed. I can allow my mom in my car, but not allow you in it. I don't have to prove anything. It's mine any you have no excuse to be in it without my permission. Period.
I know it's too much to ask to RTFA, but at least read the fucking summary, lemming. The road was clearly marked as private, Google ignored it. Same as they seem to ignore everything else these days. (E.g., recently they parked on a parking space clearl
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Welcome to the Transparent Society.
for a view of what a post-privacy world looks like.
Best Slashdot Co
It could be money, it could be principle... they may want to change Google's behavior or establish a precedent. You may be right in this case, but let's not jump to conclusions: people who take extreme positions are quite often committed to them.
at this time Google did have a takedown process for pictures - they could've just quietly filed a request instead of suing.
Opt out may or may not be acceptable depending on how much care was taken by the organization opting you in, and the consequences of not noticing that you've been opted in.
At one extreme you have things like "triple-blind" drug trials (whether the company takes care or not, the consequences are potentially severe) and spam (the consequences of each act are mild, but there are many many spammers and they of course take no care at all).
This seems pretty damned far from that extreme, but the next company doing this may be less discriminating, so it's probably best for the public to have a precedent that leans way over towards the privacy side of the equation.
I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems we're a little mixed up on what the word "private" actually means when applied in the context of law. When referring to law and property were normally talking about a person or group having the legal right and means of exclusive control over something. I don't think this necessarily extends to the other definition of "private" which is having something hidden from the view of others.
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this area can elaborate on this.
Google is only concerned about privacy when it hits them in the face.
Check this out...
http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-1032_3-5787483.html
And this...
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/
Because they "Googled" Eric Schmidt and posted some of those "public" bits that are stored in Google, Google banned CNET for awhile. Seriously. How can you trust Google when what is good for the good is not good for the gander?
...that it's not actually about their privacy, then. I mean, they know that eventually people are going to forget about their place, because there is nothing else interesting about it. In the meantime, there is a bankable opportunity...
[Ego]out
This statement from Google really makes me rethink whether I want them handling my email...
Isn't most property private? What's the point of putting a sign up that simply says private property? Some of the most photographed areas of the world are privately owned. Gotta add the "No Trespassing" or do something to try to prevent photography if you expect no one to photograph.
1. Do no evil
2. If cannot do #1, change status quo of evil
3. Profit!
Yep, give it another... 3, 4 years before we curse Google's self-serving megalith as much as Microsoft... good thing their market penetration isn't anywhe.... awh crap.
640k, brotha! \nn/
So that's Google's argument?
I suppose then that Sergey Brin or Larry Page won't mind me walking onto their property and just sit around for a day taking pictures? And same with all you people defending Google here; why don't you post your addresses and let some of us to do the same?
Ive had to argue this but im pretty sure you can film/photograph anything you like "from" public property/private property with permission. I have a letter of apology from my local police station after they tried to hassle me over taking pictures of the police station a few years ago. The meat of the google situation will be WHERE the shots were taken from, not that they were taken.
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
My gawd - doesn't anybody at Slashdot *research* these things before publishing them??
Google did NOT say this!!
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/complete-privacy-does-not-exist-statement-wrongly-attributed-to-google-in-lawsuit
The US Supreme Court has also recognized the concept of the Beaten Path. As best I recall, this means that people generally have a right to cross your private property in order to approach your front door. In order to remove this right, you have to put up no trespassing signs. Whether they have to actually knock in order to invoke the right, I do not know.
The rule (law) is that you can't photograph private property unless you are doing so from public property. The sign informs Google that they are not on public property. They may have been given implicit permission to access the land, perhaps to go as far as the front door and ask permission to take the pictures. But without explicit permission to take the pictures they cannot legally do so. Especially for posting on a publicly available repository. This is not a trespassing issue, and no trespassing charges are being pursued against Google.
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internets.
>>"The sign informs Google that they are not on public property."
Does it, really? Why should I believe it?
As I've said, Google needs to establish that the owners have been less than perfect in enforcing their alleged privacy right.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Great... First it was "Do No Evil" and we all cheered. Now it seems like it's "Do No Evil" and "We decide what's Evil."
Hmmm... kinda sounds like the US Government's stance on torture. Great... just great.
Tell it to the Jury.
Table-ized A.I.
As per the subject. Just because the following sequence of events may be likely...
1. drive onto private property ...that doesn't mean that Step 5 makes the problem start at Step 4. The problem started at Step 1.
2. take pictures
3. publish them publicly en masse
4. get sued
5. Streisand Effect!
6. more people will (attempt to) drive on said private property
If we all just keep screaming "Streisand Effect!", then we would be forcing people into tacitly allowing anybody to just come onto private property (and other events leading to the aforementioned proclamations); it's almost like extortion "Allow me onto your property, or I will post to the internet that you do not allow it, and then you will see many more people like myself show up here. You don't want many more people to show up here, do you?".
If Google, or their contractors, accessed private property that they should have known they were not allowed to, then Google should suffer the full legal consequences.
I think that it does. I guess Google could try to argue that a sign that says "Private Drive" implies that the land is public. Perhaps they could argue that the property owners have been allowing others (Yahoo, Microsoft Live View, Cuil) to take pictures of their land from their land and that means that Google somehow has explicit permission to do the same without actually getting it directly from the owners. But the law is very clear. You cannot take pictures of private property except from public property or except with explicit permission to do so. Google does not meet either condition in this case. I think Google's only angle is that the property was not clearly marked as private. The sign says otherwise. If they came in on foot from public land (national forest or some such thing) and there was no fence or signage to indicate the private land then they would be in the clear. The law is written so that beyond taking steps to indicate the line, which the owners did, you don't have to do anything else to "enforce" your privacy rights. It is not an "Opt-in" system the way the law is currently written.
It's remarkable that something you and Google consider unreasonable in such general terms is protected by such fundamental legislation as the European Convention on Human Rights.
While I recognise your implication that there will be grey areas, that is not a counter-argument to the general principle. Laws should codify principles, and courts can decide on the grey areas in the context of specific actions. This is how our legal system works.
I can't imagine any court holding that writing down something you saw in public is illegal in general. But certain very specific factors in Google's actions are quite distinct, black-and-white things, none of which would apply to the guy in the street who happens to see something as he walks past. This is the sort of list I usually give as a starting point, though I make no claim that a more astute or comprehensive list could not be made instead:
I note that the effects of these factors can be quite widespread, and there are socially unacceptable boundaries even for behaviour in a public place.
If you are just walking down the street minding your own business and a gust of wind through an open window on a calm day blows a curtain so you glimpse someone getting changed, I suspect almost everyone would say that's just the luck of the draw, and while it might be a little embarrassing for either or both people, there is little real harm done. On the other hand, if you were going out each night and, while standing on public roads, using binoculars to look for small gaps in people's curtains through which you could stand there and watch them getting changed, I think most people would find that behaviour pretty creepy and consider it a deliberate invasion of privacy (and in fact the law explicitly recognises this in some places).
Another example is that if you walk past someone while you're out shopping, no-one would call that invasion of privacy. However, if you followed someone around for a whole day, going in to each shop behind them, recording everything they bought, photographing the cards they used to pay and videoing them as they typed their PINs into the machines, I think almost everyone would consider that harassment and an invasion of privacy.
Respect for privacy is never as simple as some distinction between public and private places. There's a lot more to it than that, but common sense and common courtesy is all it takes to work out the general ideas in fairly objective terms.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So now Google is fighting against privacy. I guess the "do no evil" thing is over. I mean come on, trying to set precedence against privacy is at least a little evil.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I am disturbed at the number of posters who seem oblivious to the basic legal principle at work here.
My right to privacy extends beyond your ability to violate my privacy without breaking any unrelated laws (tresspassing, for example.)
Under the law, I have a right to privacy if I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So, for example, I have a right to not be photographed by a stranger in a public restroom, because I have a reasonable expectation of such privacy. The stranger's right to be present in a public restroom and in possession of a camera have nothing to do with it.
Also, contrary to what a previous poster said, you do not have the right to look through my windows with a telescope, since that also violates my reasonable expectation of privacy.
So the legal question here is:
Is the expressed desire for privacy (the sign) on one's own private property enough to generate a reasonable expectation of privacy?
> I wonder if you could legally set up landmines on private property.
Definitely not, because emergency services may need to enter your property, and they'd take exception to being blown up.
However, how about mining your property with non-lethal and non-hurting mines, like custard pie launchers and water grenades for example? Would that be legal, as long as there's no possibility of accidental public access?
And if it's still not legal, it begs the question of how free you really are in your own house, on your own property. I bet the real answer is, "You're not".
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The couple is seeking compensation for devaluation of their property and mental stress that resulted from Google's actions. The legality of Google's action or presence on the road is a completely separate matter and not part of their claim (according to the article).
That said, Google's not in any trouble at all. If private property is open to the public the owner cannot claim an individual is trespassing without first informing the individual their presence is unwanted and giving that individual an opportunity to leave.
Further, it is unreasonable to believe that one's property will not be photographed simply because it lies on a private road. What if their neighbors collectively photographed the property from every angle and sold the pictures to Google?
In other news, rich people have lots of money.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
The presence of a sign that says "Private Road" does not, by itself, mean that the road is, in fact, private.
It seems likely that courts have ruled on similar cases in the past. Perhaps one of the things they have considered is the extent to which such a sign, by itself, conveys a legally enforceable "stay out" order.
Again, if Google can demonstrate that the owners have allowed other members of the public to use the road, i.e., have failed to thwart all public access, then Google can argue that the road is something other than completely private.
For Google's purpose, the best case might be to locate someone who drove down the road and photographed the house, and was not subject to a suit,
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I'm posting a robots.txt at the bottom of my driveway.
By the same logic I should be free to drive up to the front of the Google CEOs house, take photographs, and post them on the Internet.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0730081google1.html
This was much more informative than TFA and it also includes scanned images of Google's preliminary statement.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
What Google is saying is that they have no responsibility to protect anyone's privacy.
Of course there's privacy and of course there's an expectation of privacy, especially behind the doors of one's home.
Microsoft has essentially said that they would not honor anyone's privacy until the courts told them how much privacy they should protect. Google is doing the same thing here. Google is just saying that we can't protect your privacy so there is no privacy and so you should expect no privacy. They are saying that they have no intention of protecting anyone's privacy until the courts tell them that we actually do have privacy.
The courts do recognize privacy. The police authority also have to respect our privacy. Google's argument will fall on deaf ears. The jury will never accept ruling in favor of Google on this matter because they'll be saying that no one has any privacy. Would you want to be on the jury where you tell the people of the USA that they have no privacy?
This is a lame argument on Google's part.
Aside from that the merit of the case at hand is very dim. I don't see how they could win. Your garbage is private until you put it on the curb. Then it is free game. Your home is private inside yet not on the outside because it is in full view of everyone. Does that give Google the right to spread the view further? As much as it does to allow soemone to take a photo of your home or have a photo with your home in it. It is a far stretch. The plaintiff is hoping for a settlement. Google is hoping for summary judgement. Those inbetween (us) could loose something precious if Google wins. If the plaintiff wins we all could just end up being sued right and left for privacy violations because we take a photo of something, even if it doesn't make it into the public.
Google should not be posturing this position. Soon it will only be the rich that have privacy and all we have is our unspoken thoughts.
This is not an area where profit shouldn't be coming into play. Google should know better.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Argh. This is like a misquoted movie line. It is really "don't be evil".
I don't know about other states, but here in PA trespassing works like this: If there is no sign, or there's some other reasonable thing that makes you think entry is ok (for example, the property in question is a business and has signs advertising goods or services), you may enter, and as long as you leave when asked, you are not trespassing. If you refuse to leave, you'll be arrested. The property owner can then ban you from their property. You'd be served with a letter giving the address, and property owner, and be formally told you are prohibited. If a no trespassing sign is posted, entry is automatically trespassing, end of stort. The couple absolutely has the right to sue - Google is profiting (via ad revenue) from pictures obtained illegally.
...if someone with a camera drove onto the private property of Mr. Brin and Mr. Page and snapped pictures of their mansions and other parts of their property.
"in the corporate criminal world there can be no expectation of safety."
There, Google, I fixed that for you.
--
make install -not war
This is just a cash grab from some people that may or may not be justified in causing a stink that Google trespassed on their private property. At most, they'd have to remove the offending images, which they have done. This family, however, wants a truckload of money for the trouble they've went through.
Someone illegally setting foot on your land, even if its marked, does not entitle you to a truckload of money.
It doesn't even entitle you to invoke self-defense laws unless you have damn good reason to believe you're in danger.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Sue Google.
company motto or not
I agree. Privacy is and has always been something of a theoretical concept never actually extant in practice. 'Back in the day' privacy didn't exists because everyone lived in small towns or villages and everyone knew eachother and everyone knew what everyone else did. It's remarkable but we actually have more privacy today than we did then despite or because of the advent of technology. We might be able to spy on other people's homes from pictures taken months back but that's not really spying...that's historical record of location.
Ok, let's see....
I'm not able to smoke in certain streets, not even in the very places where they SELL tobacco (in France), I can't even walk with my dog in some others (in Wellington, NZ).
I don't know about the US but I'm already sick of it. When will they begin to restrain the air I can breathe or the water I can drink ?
Do you reaaly think a plot of land, a blade of grass can BELONG to somebody ? What will one do with it once he dies ?
C'mon, let's abolish private property, it's a non-sense designed for some people to think they're better than the others.
As if a 'No trespassing' sign would prevent any burglar to break in.
They make me laugh with their story of their garage visible from google street view. It's visible everyday to everybody who finds himself here, what's the point in wanting to hide it ?
tbh I do agree with Google, the governments have constantly eroded our privacy and allowed corporations to do so as well. All Google is doing is working within this environment.
Ideally if a government was honestly interested in protecting people's privacy, then they should start by adding a base fact into the legal system: "If there is data about a person, then it belongs to that person." It shouldn't matter who collected it, or for what purpose, if its about me, then I should be able (at no cost), to see it, get it corrected (typically if its government collected), or get it removed. Ideally I should also be able to see who's accessed it (obviously with respect to policing requirements (and no everyone's a terrorist until proven otherwise or shot, isn't policing))
Until something along those lines is put in place, Google is right, complete privacy is a myth.
----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
Not Way-Up-At-The-End-Of-Long-Private-Driveways View.