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.
Shouldnt the couple sue google for trespass, too?
In any case, how does being featured on street view lower property value?
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.
Luddites? For not wanting folks driving on their private property? I am not sure why Google should be above the law.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind Google street view coming in your house unannounced and taking pictures of whatever they want.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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
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.
Driving up to someone's house on their "private property" (err, driveway) should never be illegal. Google is welcome to photograph the outside of my house as much as they like, since I don't consider it to be private, since there's no way for me to hide it from public view.
Good thing they weren't actually IN anybody's house. Why let little details like that get in the way of an otherwise decent slashdot discussion though.
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 |
That might be your opinion. It might be Google's opinion. But the law states otherwise. Google needs to obey the law.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
"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.
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
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)
I didn't read the article (surprise). If they are suing beyond the trespassing, then they are schmucks. However, I was only replying to the 'Luddite' comment which I took to be directed at anyone who puts up a barrier between their house and the public.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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
The key word in "private property" is private. To say that privacy doesn't exist is ludicrous. If you think otherwise, can I plant a spy cam in your bedroom? I hear your wife is a hottie.
If I have a long, winding driveway with a "no trespassing" sign on it and you come onto my property uninvited, I'm calling the police AND my lawyer, having you jailed for trespassing and sued for invasion of privacy. Nobody has a right to be on my property without my permission.
"Don't be evil" is clearly a hollow slogan, no more real than Pontiac's "we build excitement". If they were serious the slogan would be "do no evil".
For once, the old slashdot geezer joke is serious: Get the fuck off my lawn.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
What makes the fact that part of their property is paved or might have some gravel thrown on it any different than the rest of their property? What if own a square mile of land with a house in the middle and a "driveway" a half mile long connecting to a public road at the end. Should I expect to be able to enforce my desire for uninvited individuals to enter my property and photograph it in that case?
Lets remove the drive way. I simply get between my house and the road half a mile away using an off road capable vehicle. Would the be different, and if so, why? What if my property extended only 10 feet from the walls of my house? Sure, someone could photograph it from 11 feet away, but if their 9 feet away I can tell them to "get off my lawn".
Photographing something from public property may not be something that should be prohibited, but on *my* property if I don't want you there you shouldn't be there camera in hand or not. This is especially true if I have no trespassing and private property signs posted at the entrance.
Google didn't photograph their house from the public road. They drove *onto* their property which was clearly marked and started taking pictures intended to be published publicly.
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
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...
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.
I did read the article and it doesn't say anything about suing for trespassing.
I'm guessing that they figured that a trespassing lawsuit wouldn't pay as much as "lowered property values" and "mental stress" so they went with the latter. I don't see how a simple Google Street View image lowers your property values. Beside, Google has a clear method for removing the images. They should have contacted Google and asked for those images to be taken down. If Google didn't comply in a reasonable amount of time, then you could sue for something other than the initial trespassing.
Of course, a guilty verdict on a hypothetical trespassing charge would rely on other factors like visible signs marking the property as private. If the only sign is obscured by a bush, then the Google van can't be faulted for not knowing that it was a private road. If there are multiple easily viewed signs, then Google is at fault.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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..)
Is a "private property" sign the same as a "no trespassing" sign in the U.S.? Here, it's pretty meaningless; It basically means "this is privately-owned property; you're here at the leasure of the owner(s) and may be asked to leave at any time".
http://outcampaign.org/
And just how far does this magic bubble ("the law") extend to protect somebody's private property from public view? I'm a huge fan of laws. I'm not a fan of slashdot lawyers.
No because Google has an access control system. You can have privacy, you just have to pay for it.
Seriously, Privacy is a right, you do not have to pay for it!
One can wonder what privacy expectation we should have for the future with nano technologies. I can imagine the defense of Google lawyers: "Yes we can go to your bathroom, after all bugs have the right to go there too". I admit that the law should not ignore the technology, but that does not mean that technology should dictate the law.
It would'nt be google building, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind that much if someone took a photo of there coffee-machine. That is, if someone can access the said machine without meeting any "closed-door".
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
I don't see how a simple Google Street View image lowers your property values.
Well, playing devil's advocate here...
I suppose the argument could be that people who buy houses with long driveways and "private property" signs are the sort of people who value their privacy. They are willing to pay a premium for a home that is not immediately accessible to anyone who drives by.
Prospective buyers who view the house on Google streetview might come to the conclusion that, if the property is visible on Streetview, the home might not be all that private after all, and would not be willing to pay as much for it.
No, to truly boycott Google you'd have to stop using it completely (including other sites that include it in aggregate search results). Your searches would still count towards their overall statistics, which Google in turn would tout and use to generate additional revenue from those paid ads.
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.
Lost property value may in fact be a solid argument. In a world where many city dwellers have neighbors just the other side of an apartment or semi-detached home wall many people choose rural locations, high fences or bushes for the added seclusion even if it means a bit of a commute. By trespassing onto this private property to take pictures that have been posted for the whole world to see, this couple would have trouble marketing their house that way and may not be able to get as high a price because of it.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
publicly accessible areas
lets break that down... areas which are accessible, to the public.
So you mean any land that any member of the public could get to. So tell me... how do people get to your front door if its not accessible? You have a moat? I want a moat...
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
"The Law", 2008 act: allows homeowners to sue anyone within 50km of their property
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I've argued that the US is a police state* before, but "no privacy" isn't the hallmark of a police state. The Nazis had privacy in their own homes, even if they were encouraged to be Judas and rat out family and friends, as is done here in the US.
It's not likely IMO, but isn't it possible that a worldwide government could be a democracy?
*link NSFW
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It doesn't matter if they were in anybody's house. The deciding factor is going to be where the photographer stood when he took the picture. If he was on their property, Google will lose. If not, Google will win. The law in these matters goes waaaaaay back.
Of course, the couple may have a harder time proving damages....
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
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.
But they were trespassing _when_ they took the pictures. That is the whole case!!
>>"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"
Actually, the law specifies that your privacy extends as far as you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." I don't think your yard qualifies.
They're not having charges pressed for trespassing, since this is in civil court, not criminal court, and these particular plantiffs sound motivated by the deep coffers Google has. If they can't get damages, then it isn't worth their while.
You can't sue for trespassing, you have to sue for an injury. Given that the right of access to the courts is protected in Pennsylvania, including addressing such injuries as the plaintiffs are alleging, I see no reason to make it a criminal matter.
Hey genius, do some reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy Privacy laws don't work like that.
Define trespass. Solicitors are allowed on your property until they are asked to leave. Furthermore, government surveyors are allowed on your property for the purposes of map making and such. So you already don't have the protection you claim. The question is, can you combine these two parts of law to allow private surveying of the property? That's an open question for the courts to figure out, but Google seems to be on pretty firm ground. Unless there are fences or signs telling them not to enter or take pictures, then most likely, the courts will side with them.
IHBT?
they should've just taken their guns (every American owns at least 2, right?)
No, I don't own any. I did when I was younger and hunted, but have no need for one now, even though my favorite redneck bar is in the ghetto and I frequently walk home from there.
and shoot the Google car
You would go to jail for that, and possibly shot and killed by the police. One fellow was firing shots in the air here in Springfield to ring in the New Year last January, on his own property, and the local cops shot him multiple times. He was put in jail when he got out of the hospital, and now is a felon who can't own a gun.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Your searches would still count towards their overall statistics, which Google in turn would tout and use to generate additional revenue from those paid ads.
Then pollute their data (their are Fifefox addons for that) it'll make them irrelevant.
It depends upon what the couple are suing Google for.
You are right that trespass seems like the easiest case. However, they could also be claiming a cause of action such as invasion of privacy, and more specifically the sub-prong of publication of private facts. For this cause of action, whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy as to what was published is at stake.
Other causes of action for invasion of privacy are misappropriation of one's name or image for commercial gain; intrusion upon seclusion or privacy; and publication of facts placing one in a false light (or something along those lines). But it doesn't appear from the facts that any of these could be made out (but the facts are just about nonexistent).
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.
This assumes that the individual must grovel before the government. This runs counter to the idea that public officers are public servants. It is not consistent with the American understanding of a republic. Oh, wait...
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
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.
Why isn't Google just buying their house?
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!
In agree. They must be retarded doing such a thing. Hey, waidaminute. Retardedness is obviously caused by mental distress.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
No, it doesn't. I don't give a shit about the government. I want to remain informed, and I do not have enough respect for any of you to hide who and what I am for the sake of your sensibilities, therefore I do not support systematically maintaining your own privacy at the price of my own ignorance. Now, I'm not going to hang my details on a flagpole while you retain the capacity to act in systematically maintained obscurity, but that doesn't mean I don't support stripping my own privacy away at the same time that yours is stripped away. Some might think that hypocritical, I consider it pragmatic.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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.
Why I agree that "private property is private" the issue here is NOT that Google was on their private property.
For example, if I take a picture of my child in my backyard, in the background you'll be able to see my neighbor's backyard. This isn't because I was on their property, but because the photons of light from the sun (or wherever) are bouncing off the objects in my neighbor's yard and traveling onto MY property. Saying: "you can't look at my property from somewhere else" is a bit ridiculous. If you don't like the physics of light, then you are free to put up barriers to stop it. (Fences, etc...)
I'm a huge privacy advocate, but there is a big difference between collecting the emissions coming from a property and sending emissions into a property. For example, standing outside your property line and taking pictures? That should be legal, because nothing "violates" your space. Bouncing a laser beam off your property to create a LIDAR-like image? That gets a bit more dicey in my non-lawyer opinion.
I'm just not sure what choice we have. I could definitely use another search engine because I'm never going to be searching for anything that really needs or uses the full reach of their "largest search engine"
I didn't say "observing the outside of your home", I said TRESPASSING. Google can photograph my home without violating my privacy; it's visible from the street. I have no expectation of privacy sitting on my porch swing.
My frined Mike's house, otoh, is out in the boonies and only accessible by private road, just like the home owned by the people suing Google. I do have an expectation of privacy sitting on Mike's porch; it is not visible form any public road or land.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
The law in the municipality of the residence.
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
I don't see how a simple Google Street View image lowers your property values.
Really? You think that it is a huge coincidence that since Google started this program, house prices all over the US have dropped considerably. They have just started doing it in the UK as well, and guess what, house prices have started dropping there too.
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.
If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear. If you've something to hide, you better hide it well.
I beg to differ. While at that site (a local weekly newspaper) search for "Paul Carpenter" for additional stories on the crooked cop who planted dope on innocent people.
Also see this articla about our (now incarcerated) former Governor; the linked portion explains why he declared a moratorium on capital punishment. Hint: they were executing innocent people, many who were on death row on trumped up charges.
I truly wish you were right.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
Why must someone who does something you don't agree with be "retarded"? The fact that you can't come up with something more clever to say clearly brings into question your own level of intelligence.
Equating someone who makes a seemingly foolish decision (in your opinion) to someone who is cognitively impaired is moronic shows a lack of social understanding.
I doubt you are smarter than a 5th grader.
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.
Announcing Google Home View!
Just click on a house to see pictures of the interior and it's occupants in the restroom!
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.
Both of your articles relate to people being framed. Transparency makes framing people harder, while ignorance makes it easier. Therefore, your articles support my position.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
...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
Can you really be jailed for trespassing in America? If so, that's another notch on the twatometer.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
Really? You think that it is a huge coincidence that since Google started this program, house prices all over the US have dropped considerably.
If I had mod points, I wouldn't know whether to mod you funny, or paranoid. I'm leaning toward funny.
(What do you mean, there is no longer a "paranoid" mod?!)
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
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."
If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear.
My links refute the above statement. You do, indeed, have much to fear whether or not you're doing anything wrong, as the innocents on death row and the people being framed for drugs attest. An easy way to get revenge on someone is plant drugs in their car and call CrameStoppers and narc on them.
Also, wrong!=illegal. Adultery is wrong, but it's legal. Smoling pot isn't wrong, but it is illegal.
If you've something to hide, you better hide it well.
That's just common sense. I wasn't arguing against that statement.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
So the sign at the head of the private drive that said "Private Drive" doesn't erode Googles firm ground? If a solicitor came up your drive, took pictures of the inside of your house through windows and posted them to the net you think they are on "firm ground"? There are easments to property that allow the government surveyors, utility line workers, postal carriers, etc certain rights to your property. But even they have limits, for instance the "posting pics of you taken through a window on the net" would still be illegal.
I worry about those who are arguing that it is indeed legal, and that there is nothing we can do about that.
Then you could be charged with "Making copyrighted material available for distribution"...
Google has ads?
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
I only stated "IN" as a response to the parent post saying "I don't want you in my house". That's the problem with slashdot lawyers...they don't RTFA and they make their assumptions. Besides, didn't Google already take it down because of the complaint? That makes this a non-issue in my book, and the "damages" are bogus.
I agree with you. What I can't figure out is the airspace thing . . . what about aerial photography of mike's porch with a really good telephoto lense , oh and an IR camera as well to spot the grow room or count people inside or make sure your stove is off? I think this should not be legal either with the exception of 3m resolution for Google Earth like applications . . . the image database for which is public domain (is here means that I think it should be) and in the visible spectrum only.
I worry about those who are arguing that it is indeed legal, and that there is nothing we can do about that.
I worry about people who think just posting a "Private Drive" sign has any legal merit.
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.
I hope I get 'jailed' by you someday. I'll sue your ass off for false-imprisonment, as a sign in your yard doesn't justify you arresting me. If you ask me to leave, and I don't, that's a different story.
Maybe you missed the post above that talks about "reasonable expectation of privacy"...as in it is reasonable to expect the inside of your house to be private but the outside, as long as it is in a public place (like you don't own your own island country), not so much.
Oh come on, not RTFA is a Slashdot tradition, you can't fault someone for that!
I don't think it matters that much that Google took down the image, it was up for a time, and people under Google's direction trespassed to get that picture. Now having said that, I agree that there is probably not much in the way of damages to be claimed, it's hard to see how someone was financially hurt by having a photo of their house available on Street View, for a short period of time. It's possible that nobody other than the homeowners even looked at the photo, until they filed their suit.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
>>"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.
The issue is that with the sign Google, and everyone else, is informed that they are on private property. The list of "things that you can do" gets shorter when you are on private property. The law is already there, and there is no "opt-in" to be covered by the law other than somehow defining the line between the public property and the private property. It so happens that you are not allowed to photograph private property from that private property without explicit permission. By posting the sign they are alerting Google that now they are on private property. Google could simply turn around, get on public land and resume shooting, or they could get explicit permission to take pictures from the private property. They did neither, and what they did instead is illegal.
The couple would not have standing to sue Google for trespassing unless they owned the road.
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 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespassing#Trespass_law
Figured I'd help.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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
From your source:
According to the United States law, examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are person's residence [sic]
Your residence is most definitely private, and trespass is a violation of one's right to privacy.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
you could get a few dozen acres surrounded by a forest
Gee, that would do you a lot of good, since Google apparently drives up privately-owned roads to photograph your house anyway.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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
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.
Is a "private property" sign the same as a "no trespassing" sign in the U.S.? Here, it's pretty meaningless; It basically means "this is privately-owned property; you're here at the leasure of the owner(s) and may be asked to leave at any time".
Not in California, at least. Here, "private XXX" means "this XXX is not government owned", and that is it. That way, you know whether or not particular laws (like the CA Vehicle Code) apply. If you want to legally prevent people from entering, you must have a barrier or a "no trespassing" sign (better yet, both).
In cities, corporations constantly put up signs like "private property; permission to enter or pass over is revocable at any time". It protects the right of the land owner to say "Get off!" whenever he wants to. Otherwise, you can get into the position of implicitly giving an easement for passage to the public.
As for other states, I wouldn't know. Things like this have a tendency to vary by state.
Most of the ads are not pay-per-click but pay-per-view. Can't boycott Google without turning off the Internet today.
"in the corporate criminal world there can be no expectation of safety."
There, Google, I fixed that for you.
--
make install -not war
Will there be a subscription fee?
So if somebody came knocking on their door, say to ask if they'd like their lawn mowed, they are trespassers? I think not. I think the burden is on the home owners to tell any "trespassers" they are not welcome and they have to leave. A sign saying "Our special private drive" does not suffice, nor would even a "No Trespassing" sign. It is clear in most jurisdictions that you can't just throw up a sign and then arrest the first guy who comes along without telling them they aren't welcome.
I almost buy your post. The problem is that a sign alone isn't enough. The owner would actually have to confront the "trespasser" and tell them they are not welcome on the private property. The sign does not automatically cover the owner. What DID happen is Google went on private property (knowingly or unknowingly, doesn't matter) and took pictures. THEN the owners complained (rightfully so) and then Google took them down (rightfully so). That's how it should and did work. Had the owners come out of their house and said "leave now and don't take any pictures" then Google did anyway, THEN I might buy the "illegal" line.
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).
rofl. I'm sure it's been tried, but still... could you paint a mural on your roof, file a copyright on it (you'd have to submit a reproduction, of course, but you'd just have to take a picture of it), and sue anyone who publishes aerial/satellite imagery of your house?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
On this site I'll take "almost" any day :)
The owner would actually have to confront the "trespasser" and tell them they are not welcome on the private property
This is a completely different issue. These people are not going after Google for trespassing. If I have no walls or fences on my property I cannot reasonably or legally expect people not to traverse across it. But, as long as I mark the private land then it prevents someone from standing on that private land and taking pictures. They can stand just off the private land and take all the pictures they want. But unless I grant them explicit permission, they cannot stand on my land and take the pictures. They can stand on my land and not take pictures, and if I shake my fist and demand that they leave, and they don't leave, well that begins to expose them to trespass.
So if your objection is that the sign is not enough to expose anyone on their land to trespassing charges then we agree, and I have not suggested otherwise. The sign is merely the device which sets the "on private property" bit, which in turn sets the "can't take pictures without permission" bit. Just by granting implicit access to your private property you do not thereby explicitly grant the right to photograph. That is what the law says. So you never have to say "don't take any pictures", you just have to not say "okay, go ahead and take pictures." Now given the fact that Google took the pictures down, I don't believe that there is any kind of civil damages that they can get.
I think it's simply meant to be punitive. You can't say "We're suing you to teach you not to be dicks with no respect for privacy" so instead we have these other various damages.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
In that case, you should be perfectly okay with roving gangs of travelling salesmen driving up to your house and knocking on your door any time they want, despite your "no soliciting" signs, eh??
I see no functional difference between that, and Google ignoring a "no trespassing" sign in pursuit of corporate profit.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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?
Slashdot illiteracy is on the rise. I didn't say nothing could be done. I gave two examples of things that could be done. Please re-read until you've found them. Furthermore, "Private Drive" is not the same as a "Keep Off" or "No Trespassing" sign. Any reasonable person will realize that one gives instructions while the other simply notifies the public of something.
The law has upheld before that there are reasons for an individual to enter private property. Surveying seems like a reasonable one. Unless there are explicit instructions that you can't take pictures of the land itself, it seems Google is in a pretty strong position.
Really, it sounds like you're just getting into flamebait category. Google isn't taking pictures of you through a window. Yes, sometimes people end up in them, but that's not the intent and Google has removed photos like that in the past, when asked.
But, as long as I mark the private land then it prevents someone from standing on that private land and taking pictures
As I said, this is an open question, unless you can point to court rulings to the contrary. There are already people who can take pictures on private land, and there are already things you can do on private land without the permission of the owner, so long as the owner hasn't expressly forbidden it (and a Private Property sign does not expressly forbid anything; it just removes deniability).
You're welcome to have an opinion, but it doesn't mean jack. It's all about what the court says and the legal precedent it sets. Until that happens, or until you can quote a legal code or case law, you have no business claiming something is the law. And there certainly isn't enough information in the article to make a case one way or the other. For example, there's not even any concrete statement that Google was even on the property. It's presumed. Drawing legal conclusions from such fluff is impossible.
I question your reading comprehension . . . or my writing perhaps. But I did not say Private Drive = No Trespassing. I said that in order to take pictures on private property you need explicit permission. Granting implicit access to the land does not in turn grand photo rights. The Private Drive sign is all that is required to identify the land as private and thus turn on the "can't take pictures here without explicit permission".
I have seen the case law, and studied some precedent setting cases that have upheld what I said. The easments that allow surveyors etc. on private land don't necessarily allow for pictures, but for anyone else permission must be explicitly granted. This has been the case for a long time in the US. I'll let you do your own research into the matter if you're interested, the cases I have looked into were in regards to architectural photos and photos of sculpture in Seattle.
Sue Google.
So if your objection is that the sign is not enough to expose anyone on their land to trespassing charges then we agree, and I have not suggested otherwise.
Oops, my bad. YOU haven't, but many others have in this thread so far. I got distracted with so many posts to disagree with in one morning!
I understand that my "No solicitation" sign is nothing other than a plea for courtesy, yes. I don't need the sign though, since their are laws in my municipality that limit the times I can be solicited to what "society" considers to be acceptable.
Well, that does change things a bit. I'd be interested in seeing those cases if they are available online. Otherwise, I'll wait and see what happens here. Thanks.
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.
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