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.
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.
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
You mean those No Trespassing signs I see along plots of land throughout town can be ignored? I seriously always thought that I could be prosecuted with a pretty significant chance of losing my case if I walked across the property if a) caught and b) up against a motivated property owner. Care to share some details of your findings that require more than a sign?
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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."
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'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"
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.
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.
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
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.
Announcing Google Home View!
Just click on a house to see pictures of the interior and it's occupants in the restroom!
You are conflating the notions of "Private Property" and "No Trespassing." A sign indicating that some area is private property does not mean you can't be there. It simply informs you that you are not on public land, and that the owner of the property thus has certain rights to enforce the rules of their choosing.
A shopping mall, for example, may make a rule stating that nobody under 18 can be in the mall without an accompanying guardian after 5 pm, or establish rules for where you can and cannot park your car, or ban skateboarding on the premises. A country club may ask you to leave because of your terrible BO. Whatever. The point is that it just means you are not on public land.
A "No Trespassing" sign, on the other hand, both establishes that the land is private property (or government controlled, I suppose), and that the owner's rules include "don't set foot here without my explicit consent".
"No Trespassing" usually implies "Private Property" but not vice-versa.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.