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.
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.
Yep. I can't help but feel we're entering an age of total surveillance. Both major contenders for US President voted in favor of FISA legislation - it's just one step in the incremental process of the decimation of individual privacy.
It was only the "left wing liberals" who stirred up much of a fuss over this, and everyone knows that they're nutjobs anyway. The majority of the American populace is uneducated or uninterested in these issues, and they're happy to sit idly by while their freedom erodes before their eyes!
I don't think many of you realise it, but this is very much an American discussion. The whole privacy/trespass thing is an Americanism, and the rest of us *already* think you're "paranoid weirdos" (joke, joke).
Seriously, though, in England and Wales there is an established legal Right to Wander; so long as I don't do damage, I can wander wherever I like. Am I tresspassing? The owner can do nothing about it unless I do damage. Am I invading their privacy by taking photos of their property? Tough.
This is not a failure of the law; it is a balance of the rights of the public versus the rights of individual property owners. My rights as a member of the public trump theirs as property owners, in this case.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
And if the couple prosecuted Google for trespassing, they would have a valid case and be well within their rights. However, suing for lost property value and mental distress is just bullshit that has nothing to do with the law
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
Needless to say an (english) sign "NO ENTRY", if clearly visible is sufficient. This means that ALSO the utility company and FedEx are forbidden.
For everyone who does not have "reasonable assumption of permission" (think "the neighbours called 911 and I'm a paramedic"), it is simply forbidden always. Private persons are only allowed to step on private property if (beforehand) invited to do so.
Above & below your property is state domain. In other words you need permission from the state to fly over your property and you need permission from the state to tunnel under it (assuming you take reasonable precautions to prevent collapse or otherwise damage the property, then again permission to fly over it does not equal permission to dump garbage on it from a plane).
In most other countries it's simply not clear. The only thing that's very clear about it, in most European countries, is that if someone decides to violate the law, nothing can be done about it (legally it's a mess, since you don't get to find out the identity of the guy trespassing, and physically you don't get to actually remove him).