Judge Dismisses Google Street View Case

angry tapir writes "A judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Pennsylvania family against Google after the company took and posted images of the outside of their house in its Maps service. The lawsuit, filed in April 2008, drew attention because it sought to challenge Google's right to take street-level photos for its Maps' Street View feature. Judge Amy Reynolds Hay from the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Google's request for dismissing the lawsuit because 'the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any count.'"

Comments

roadkill

[alain94040]

My favorite Google Street View story: Google Maps Car Hits Deer.

Just like the settlement it reached with book authors, Google could give $66 to each homeowner photographed by StreetView. We could call that agreement the Google stimulus package :-)

There is a serious discussion to be had about privacy rights and Google's objective to picture, reference and catalog everything. Some inside Google take the "do no evil" to heart. Street View blurs faces and license plates.

Good, but I wish it didn't have to be voluntary. We know what voluntary compliance by various industries lead to. That's why privacy laws have to set clear boundaries. In the dismissed lawsuit, note that the Google driver did enter a private road by mistake. Mistakes in sensitive privacy situations can be very damaging.

--
Join a FairSoftware Project: share the revenue, be part of important decisions

Re:roadkill

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Just like the settlement it reached with book authors, Google could give $66 to each homeowner photographed by StreetView.

That would just be silly and expensive. Nothing more.

Re:roadkill

[Locke2005]

Google driver did enter a private road by mistake. There is now available a very sophisticated bit of technology that is guaranteed to ensure that this never happens again. I believe the scientific name for the device is a "gate".

Re:roadkill

[Wandering Wombat]

IF car EQUALS allowed to be there THEN open ELSE fire missiles

Re:roadkill

[geekoid]

No.
We can not afford to continue down the vein of 'If it isn't locked, then you deserve what happens to you' line of thinking.
It's crap, it's harmful, and it only empowers criminals, and insurance companies...but I repeat myself.

Re:roadkill

[Renderer of Evil]

I'll see your deer photo and raise you Pittsburgh Samurai Battle

Re:roadkill

[rtb61]

The idea is just wrong. The very concept of local and state planning requirements puts the external view of your property as owned by the community around you, as they are the ones who must see it and their property values in turn are affected by it. This goes for commercial as well as residential and of course government properties. Anybody can see as it is on public display and anybody by extension can preserve a memory of it either upon a biological, digital or printed form.

Google certainly should be required to blank out parts of the image that show internal views, perhaps even people and vehicle registration plates but the external view of your property is something that is on show to the public. A blatant grab for money, mainly by the lawyer who of course profited by their 'advice' to their client. In Australia google was given a hard time for missing streets, this likely does relate to the greater sense of community in Australia and far stricter local and state planning controls and a much more developed idea of community ownership of the shared street scape.

Re:roadkill

[Pinckney]

No. We can not afford to continue down the vein of 'If it isn't locked, then you deserve what happens to you' line of thinking. It's crap, it's harmful, and it only empowers criminals, and insurance companies...but I repeat myself.

Do you care to explain why? I think it is perfectly reasonable to drive down someone's driveway, and unless they tell me to leave, post notices prohibiting it, or make the drive inaccessible. There are certainly harmless and perfectly legitimate reasons to enter another's property. Why institute a blanket prohibition?

Re:roadkill

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

If I leave the door to my home open and come home to find that my things are missing, I was an idiot for leaving the door open.

Re:roadkill

[Tubal-Cain]

Yes, but that doesn't justify what the thieves did.

Re:roadkill

[Chabil Ha']

Dear Google,

You can keep my $66.

Re:roadkill

[Rycross]

You're an idiot for leaving your door open, and the person who took it is a thief who deserves fines and jail time. Blame and fault are not zero-sum games.

Re:roadkill

[stonedcat]

I made an animation of the google deer driveby.

Behold: http://hikaricore.googlepages.com/pwned4.gif

Re:roadkill

[sbeckstead]

That does not mitigate the fact that your property was stolen and you house was in fact burglarized. I agree we must stop this stupid idea that if I can see it it is mine.

Re:roadkill

[dissy]

We can not afford to continue down the vein of 'If it isn't locked, then you deserve what happens to you' line of thinking.

But there is two sides to things here.

Yes, you can't have a blanket "if it isn't locked" type of rule, because that would lead to chaos.

However, you can't have a blanket rule the other way too far either.
I mean, if you were wandering about outside some evening, and accidentally walked on someones private property that you didn't realize was theirs but thought was still public... What are you to do when you discover your mistake?

Most people would leave if told of that fact. You say 'whoops, my bad' and go away off the private property back the way you came.
I don't believe we need to make that person a criminal for such a small and easily fixable mistake.

I don't know, i wasn't there, but it could easily have been just that type of mistake as it is to be a malicious attack on someones privacy by the Google van.

I'm fairly sure when asked that Google does remove photos people are in. That is similar to saying 'whoops, our bad, we will fix it' to me.

Maybe I'm missing something here for a reason the Google van drivers aren't getting the benefit of the doubt?

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least in certain countries, you're not allowed to enter another persons private property without authorization... because it's not your property.

It is NOT perfectly reasonable to drive down someone else's drive any more than it's perfectly reasonable to enter someone elses house when the door is open and use their exercise equipment.

Just because you *could* doesn't mean you *can*.

Re:roadkill

[ruadatha]

now that's just damn cool.. even if not really blurred in any way shape or form

Re:roadkill

[laura20]

You are in fact required to post when a public road changes to a private one, if you want no-trespassing laws to be enforced. So yes, you do need to 'lock your door', in this case. (I don't know if this road was visibly posted or not, I'm just noting the general case.)

Re:roadkill

[bacontaco]

Street View blurs faces and license plates.

Google maps is also good at respecting the privacy of retired military officers!

Re:roadkill

[Kral_Blbec]

And what if you are in the country and there isnt anything to mark it as a private driveway rather than a side street? Pretty common where I live.

Re:roadkill

[Sparr0]

I disagree. Approaching someone's door [almost] always requires stepping onto their private property without their prior consent. Until that is not the norm, you cannot institute a blanket ban on the practice.

Re:roadkill

[Belial6]

Google didn't steal anything. If you leave the door to your home open and come home to find that someone is photographing your things, you are still an idiot for leaving your door open, but your analogy will be closer to what Google did. (Depending on your neighborhood, you might not even be an idiot, but since I was mimicking your post, I thought it would sound funnier that way.)

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

this checks for it once. I believe the proper stub code is as follows:

5 REM based on code by Wandering Wombat
10 IF car$ = "allowed to be there" THEN GOSUB 30 ELSE GOSUB 40
20 GOTO 10
30 REM open gate code goes here
35 REM RETURN would be nice but why, when you can see how fast that guy can floor it 'cause...
40 REM fire missiles code goes here
45 RETURN

Re:roadkill

[interkin3tic]

That would just be silly and expensive. Nothing more.

Lawsuits are very often silly and expensive too, but you're right, that would if anything just alert people that they might be able to get more money.

Re:roadkill

[brusk]

What an inane straw man you've created. Does anyone think, "if I can see it it is mine?" Of course not. If I park my car on the side of a (public) road or in my (private) driveway, the theft of it is the same crime. No one seriously argues that taking a parked car is "okay" because it's in a public place. The only question is whether there are privately owned places that are publicly accessible. And the answer in most places is an emphatic YES. That includes driveways, front walkways, etc. But it does NOT follow from that that the users of those spaces then somehow get rights over that place. It remains privately-owned, and a random person can't, for instance, remove the paving stones from in front of my house without expecting legal consequences. It's easy enough to keep the two sets of rights separate, unless you are willfully obtuse.

Re:roadkill

[MichaelSmith]

In Australia google was given a hard time for missing streets, this likely does relate to the greater sense of community in Australia and far stricter local and state planning controls and a much more developed idea of community ownership of the shared street scape.

Lower population density. Google had more problems in Japan where the population density is higher still. If you have a nice big back yard you won't care what goes on out the front.

Re:roadkill

[NerdyLove]

So you're saying if I end up at a dead end, I shouldn't use someone's drive to turn around? Many people have short driveways. Sorry, try again.

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

You can just make out the deer here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Five+Points+Rd,+Rush,+Monroe,+New+York+14543&sll=42.990057,-77.676518&sspn=0.194878,0.354652&g=rush,+ny&ie=UTF8&cd=2&geocode=FVOZjwId4uZe-w&split=0&ll=42.953533,-77.663212&spn=0.048748,0.088663&z=14&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=42.953661,-77.663251&panoid=Tt3UIYMdqLicVdLzt5AsHQ&cbp=12,180.11978880060525,,0,11.108955244995746

But it looks like they removed the after photos. "Image no longer available"

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

That goes too slow.

Re:roadkill

[KeithJM]

If you leave the door to your home open and come home to find that someone is photographing your things

The next product from Google Labs! It's like Google search for your PC, it's Google House View (beta). Can't remember what your bathroom floor looks like, can't see it from the sofa, and you're too lazy to stand up? Google can help!

Re:roadkill

[TheRaven64]

You appear to be testing whether the car is equal to the constant expression 'allowed to be here' rather than testing whether the 'allowed to be here' property for the car is true. Since you are comparing things of two different types for equality, it seems that the most likely result of this will be to fire missiles at everything that approaches.

Remind me not to visit your house...

Re:roadkill

[robably]

If you move around on Street View you can see them in different poses as the camera car took different photos - when they're looking at the camera their faces are blurred.

Re:roadkill

[barzok]

perhaps even people and vehicle registration plates but the external view of your property is something that is on show to the public

Do you blank out your plates while you're driving? That's on show to the public all the time.

Re:roadkill

[TubeSteak]

I mean, if you were wandering about outside some evening, and accidentally walked on someones private property that you didn't realize was theirs but thought was still public... What are you to do when you discover your mistake?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_public_access_to_the_wilderness
(also known as "right to wander" and "right to ramble")
Just because it doesn't exist in the USA, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Off the top of my head: beaches are the only thing, in the USA, I can think of that are always public and you can always cross private land to reach.

Maybe I'm missing something here for a reason the Google van drivers aren't getting the benefit of the doubt?

I wouldn't think that a reasonable person could consider a dirt driveway to be a public access road.
A case obviously existed, but their day in court ended because their lawyer apparently didn't know what s/he was doing.

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

// buzzkill
if (raven.isPedant()) { this.groan(); this.rollEyes(); }

Re:roadkill

[yiantsbro]

Do you care to explain why? I think it is perfectly reasonable to drive down someone's driveway, and unless they tell me to leave, post notices prohibiting it, or make the drive inaccessible. There are certainly harmless and perfectly legitimate reasons to enter another's property. Why institute a blanket prohibition?

I'm sorry but to me that reasoning sounds too much like "If you have nothing to hide then why should you worry about being under constantly monitored (video, phone intercepts, etc.)". Google isn't a government entity but it is an entity other than myself. I should be entitled to my privacy from anyone--even non-evil-doers.

Re:roadkill

[snooo53]

And if you pan upwards, you can see a fleet of UFOs getting ready to attack...

Re:roadkill

[slashtivus]

The state of WI has something similar with fishing. When walking a stream, anything below the 'high-water' line is considered public land, even if it passes through private land.

The vast majority of land owners are well aware of this, but you occasionally find someone that puts a barbwire fence across a stream. I never bothered to cross those since there are many other places to go and it is not worth getting shot to prove a point, but I always reported those.

The next year those would be gone. I always assumed the DNR took care of the infraction, or the new owners learned about it somehow.

Regarding the dirt roads and public access... I now live out in the OR area, and there are VAST stretches of public land in OR and WA that are full of nothing but dirt roads.

Re:roadkill

[Maestro485]

I was going to say you're full of shit since I live in Pittsburgh. Then I looked at the picture and I'm almost positive I know the guy on the right.

Re:roadkill

[hedwards]

What an inane straw man you've created. Does anyone think, "if I can see it it is mine?" Of course not. If I park my car on the side of a (public) road or in my (private) driveway, the theft of it is the same crime.

Not quite, technically it's grand theft auto in both cases, but in the latter there's also probably a charge for trespass. And if they had to damage a gate getting the car out there's that as well.

Re:roadkill

[hedwards]

That's fairly common, but the type of right that the GP was referring to isn't connected in such a way. You can wander through yards and properties without being harassed. Well, assuming you're behaving and not wrecking things.

That was one of the stark differences between the US and Switzerland. It seems to work for them, but I can't imagine it working without a long cultural tradition.

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

Colonel Sanders was a brave brave man. I believe that not only did he shoot Abraham Lincoln, but he shot John Wilkes Booth as well. He used the ingredients from their dead bodies as some of his 11 seasonings for his voodoo chicken.

By eating his own chicken and drinking his own gravy, Colonel Jesus Sanders spawned Christianity as well through his magic of transchickentiation. Transchickentiation is of course, the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before.

Truly a great man. A King of kings, this God among men.

I remember growing up and having some of His Holy Gravy. Of course, for the kids, we were poured His Blood from a different kettle and received a Gravy without alcohol. Perhaps a wine cooler for us seppos, or for you, my Aussie mate, a Holy Bundaberg Rum and Coke as Dropped by the Bear (Our Father, Son, and the Holy Drop Bear).

When I was older, oh, I'd say around 12 or so, my priest moved me to the Adult Gravy where the true spice of Sanders' blood, (no, not hops - the spice of beer) but corn whiskey in a Mason (tm) jar, really came through.

I was truly happy that I realized my own internal happiness with the Colonel. As happy as I am now that Google, in all their infinite wisdom, has realized they would be breaking the Qurâ(TM)an by showing His face. I recommend the boneless variety pack. I have considered changing religions to the Popeyes variety, as I do crave a dark meat.

Re:roadkill

[aschran]

Really? You wish it didn't have to be voluntary? You would prefer that they be forced to do it unwillingly?

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy.

There are many, many instances where private property is only really that in name.

As an example, I'll use my property. I live on the coast, right at the beach. There is no public beach access nearby. The law says that the public is allowed to traverse my private land in order to gain access to the beach, so long as they do no damage and park their vehicle legally and off my land.

As a result, my private property often has small hoards of people walking across it. All perfectly legal, and in fact I'm barred legally from stopping them.

Re:roadkill

[ion.simon.c]

"Some languages don't have C/C++'s brain-damaged '=' operator behaviour.", says the professional C++ programmer.

Re:roadkill

[dissy]

Just because it doesn't exist in the USA, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Off the top of my head: beaches are the only thing, in the USA, I can think of that are always public and you can always cross private land to reach.

Well, the article Was about a Google van on a road in the USA.
Just because t does exist outside of the USA, doesn't mean it does here.

I wouldn't think that a reasonable person could consider a dirt driveway to be a public access road.
A case obviously existed, but their day in court ended because their lawyer apparently didn't know what s/he was doing.

Well, there is always that.
I have seen nothing about the particular road, so can't say what I would choose personally in that situation.
Then there is always the question of how do they know where they are going? Personally I would use GPS and a map... or two maps, one in paper form, Just Incase(tm)

The point is, there Are situations where it is not at all obvious.
If it was listed on a map then no doubt they would go down there to check it out... seeing no signs indicating that would be amiss, in they went.
Granted, I don't know if that was the case. Unfortunately that's my problem. I see no reason to suspect it wasn't a normal simple mistake, that was responded to by honoring the peoples request to not show pictures of them on the maps (or blurring them some as some /.er said.)

Ok, so I'm starting to sound like I'm defending him.
All I am saying is I, nor you it seems (if i am wrong, please share!) have any reasons to suspect anything more than this being a simple mistake that they were there and didnt know they should not be.

Let's at least pretend to assume innocents until malisous intend can be establish, or even suspected, but I'd have to hear your explanation first to believe that you had one.

Re:roadkill

[onepoint]

>>Off the top of my head: beaches are the only thing, in the USA, I can think of that are always public and you can always cross private land to reach.

Nope, not true, In NJ unless it has become a common access point ( has been open to the public and in use for 1 year or longer), you can shut your entrance to the beach. I know this to be valid in Point Pleasant, Long Beach Island, Deal, and Mantoloking. http://www.app.com/article/20081220/NEWS/81220018

currently in California, some people have refused to let people access to the beach via their property, Why? insurance liability. so until the state gives a blanket coverage for the issue, people are welding their gates. - sorry could not find the link for that

Re:roadkill

[M. Baranczak]

He's overloaded an operator for the car class. That bit of code was omitted for the sake of clarity.

Re:roadkill

[pnewhook]

I wouldn't think that a reasonable person could consider a dirt driveway to be a public access road. A case obviously existed, but their day in court ended because their lawyer apparently didn't know what s/he was doing.

No there was no case here at all and their lawyer knew it. It was a stupid lawsuit and deserved to be thrown out. The morons raising the lawsuit should have been made to pay for the defendants court costs as well.

Re:roadkill

[WiPEOUT]

There's a world of difference between an accidental trespasser immediately leaving the property and one posting photos taken of people who have an expectation of privacy then posting them on the Internet.

Once such a photo hits the Internet, just removing it will not magically delete it from everywhere it has been distributed to.

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect lots of returned letters and packages originally delivered to your address. At least the way to your house is kind of public. Entering the house is another matter.

Sorry that I shout the postman. Didn't recognize him in his new uniform....

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

if you were wandering about outside some evening

Google is not "wandering about outside". They pay people to drive around and photograph things. As such, they should be held to a higher standard than someone just wandering.
Their first priority should be to only take pictures where they are allowed and not trespass.

If someone wants to take pictures of my house *while on my property* they should need my permission.
If someone is constantly going onto private property, taking pictures then posting them online without so much as notifying the owner of the property they would probably be arrested. (unless they are a company with good lawyers)

I'm really not sure why this isn't an opt-in program that towns or states sign up and provide all the needed data on which roads are public. That way people could vote in a council meeting if they want google traipsing all over town snapping pictures or at least get their street listed as a no-fly-zone.

Re:roadkill

[dontmakemethink]

Actually, there are three ways a property owner can keep trespassers out:

1: verbal or written warning - "stay off my lawn you pesky kids!"

2: a physical barrier, i.e. fence or gate

3: a sign, i.e. "no trespassing"

Unfortunately a sign reading "private road" can be interpreted many ways, for example "use at own risk". The "private road" signs are of little legal use, people think they're a nice way of saying "stay out", but for anyone wishing to exploit the situation all they really mean is "cops won't bust you for what you do here unless I call in and somehow keep you here while a patrol car probably won't even bother coming out, and I have to maintain the road myself."

Re:roadkill

[dontmakemethink]

It's just high-tech paparazzi of mostly very uninteresting terrain. If Princess Di can die from that exact same sort of shit to a ridiculously higher degree without any indictments handed out, what does Google have to fear from a few hicks?

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

If you leave the door to your home open and come home to find that someone is photographing your things

The next product from Google Labs! It's like Google search for your PC, it's Google House View (beta). Can't remember what your bathroom floor looks like, can't see it from the sofa, and you're too lazy to stand up? Google can help!

obligatory link

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

even factoring in insurances? =D

Re:roadkill

[AlecC]

There are some places - the Scottish Islands are one - where the crime rate is low enough that people routinely leave their houses unlocked. Neighbours can enter the house, e.g. to borrow and return things, at will. Likewise car keys are left in the ignition so that if the car is in the way anybody can move it.

I realise that it is impossibly idealistic to expect this to work in cities. Nonetheless, I wish that the default belief was that you *should* be able to leave your property unguarded, and that city life is, in this sense, a falling off from ideal standards. To institutionalise that idea that the default is that anything not locked or tied down is "fair game" is to bring in a grimmer society, in my opinion.

Re:roadkill

[N Monkey]

He's overloaded an operator for the car class. That bit of code was omitted for the sake of clarity.

Or, alternatively, to win an "underhanded" coding competition.

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

Might be handy for when you need to find the keys though!

Re:roadkill

[damaki]

Northern France too. A friend of mine who was born in a small town (45000 inhabitants), used to live with his parents who never lock any door. In 30 years, they had only one burglary, and the people only took useless and valueless shit.

By the way, there is also this neighbor borrowing thing. I am always amazed to see how northern France people are similar to Scottish ones.

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time I meet you on the street, I'm gonna slap you unless you tell me not to, post "notices" telling me not to (e.g. by wearing a shirt that says "don't slap me") or keep me from doing it (e.g. by wearing a helmet).

Why institute a blanket prohibition, after all?

Re:roadkill

[Dekortage]

Does anyone think, "if I can see it it is mine?" Of course not.

I realize this may be off-topic, but have you heard about people downloading pirated movies and music off the Internet? Seems like an example of "if I can see it, it is mine," or at least "if I can find it, it can be mine."

Re:roadkill

[Dekortage]

Off the top of my head: beaches are the only thing, in the USA, I can think of that are always public and you can always cross private land to reach.

Upstate New York's Adirondack State Park is over six million acres of forest, mountains, lakes, and streams -- the largest state park in the continental U.S., almost as large as the entire state of Massachussetts. Half of the land in it, is actually privately-owned. Years ago, I hiked and camped there a lot, and frequently hiked along a state trail, only to find myself tramping across someone's backyard. And that is perfectly acceptable there. Very little land in the Adirondacks are truly off-limits to hikers, and it is very clearly marked. If you buy property there, you just know that hikers may be on your land. It's part of the deal. Your house is still private, but your land is fairly open access.

Re:roadkill

[Shadowland]

>it seems that the most likely result of this will be to fire missiles at everything that approaches.
>Remind me not to visit your house...

He will. In the form of a missile fired at your vehicle...

Re:roadkill

[brusk]

In most jurisdictions entering a driveway is not trespass unless there's some kind of warning (an oral warning, a fence, or a "Private Property" sign).

Re:roadkill

[brusk]

Yes, it is off-topic, precisely because most people who engage in that activity do NOT defend themselves with a blanket claim that whatever they CAN take is rightfully theirs: they make the distinction between downloading (which does not deprive the "owner" of the good) and theft (which does).

Re:roadkill

[arekusu_ou]

What privacy right? People's desired rights and actual rights do not coincide.

As much as I hate paparazzi and wish they were made illegal, they have the right to photograph from a distance, the exterior of your property, or even you when you're outside.

Now this couple didn't have a case at all, even IF the claim of a private road was true. Too much money was at stake for them to not lay their facts out on the table.

Personally I think "private road" will be an increase of people putting up fake signs. They already put up cones and trash cans outside their homes to hold a spot. Seen people put up yellow tape for similiar reasons. some just didn't want people parking out on the street.

Re:roadkill

[Niris]

And like everything else Google, it'll remain in beta forever.

Re:roadkill

[Dekortage]

Fair enough.

So, just to take this to a logical conclusion... would it be OK if a stranger walked into your house or office; copied your music CDs, movie DVDs, and files off your computer; photographed your desk and bedroom; and then left your house... as long as the original materials remained behind? They would not be depriving you of the "good" you receive from those items.

Re:roadkill

[Chosen Reject]

would it be OK if a stranger walked into your house or office

The stranger, unless I invited him in, has already committed trespassing and possibly breaking and entering. However, my office is open all the time (so long as you can get into the building). If a stranger (the nightly janitorial crew, perhaps) came into my office and copied everything I have then I wouldn't be upset. Why should I? They were allowed to be there, didn't take anything away from me, didn't break anything, didn't vandalize anything, didn't interfere with me. What would I have lost? Why should it bother me? If any of the above was not true, then I might have been able to take some kind of action, legal or otherwise, but if all of those things are the case then what harm has been done?

Re:roadkill

[Reziac]

Without bothering to look it up, I *think* the way it goes in CA is that if you have beachfront property, anyone can still use "your" beach, but they can't tramp thru your private property to reach it. However, they can walk along the beach in front of all your private houses.

I might misremember (having no particular need to know) but I think it's something like that.

Re:roadkill

[tomkost]

Actually, in some other places, it is the norm to allow others on your property as long as they are causing no harm. The concept is called "everyman's right", and is popular in Nordic countries and Scotland, plus a few other places. Basically, you are free to walk/hike and even camp overnight for short periods of time. This is typically in wilderness areas like forest etc. I think the real question here is why is everyone so uptight about it. So someone took a picture of their house and posted it on the internet. Google provides tools to remove those images, but instead, the couple sued. This is an abuse of the legal system and they should pay Google's legal fees - in my opinion...

Re:roadkill

[stewbacca]

Who cares if it's a private drive. Solicitors still have the right to come knock on your door without fear of being fragged in the driveway.

Re:roadkill

[StikyPad]

But he forgot to instantiate it!

Re:roadkill

[brusk]

I didn't say I thought that, only that that was what people who defend downloading copyrighted content would say.

My personal position is that both copying my data and stealing my stuff are wrong and should be illegal, but they are substantially different and should be treated differently.

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, WTF?

Re:roadkill

[StikyPad]

Holy shit.. every car in sight is driving on the wrong side of the road!

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're kidding, but Sanders was a member of the Order of Kentucky Colonels, not a military officer.

Re:roadkill

[theJML]

Indeed, perhaps:

if ($car->allowed_to_be_here!=1) { fireMissles(); }

Or even:

if (!allowedToBeHere($car)) { fireMissles(); }

Re:roadkill

[stonedcat]

Blame your shitty internets.

What do you expect on dialup with a 3.5mb gif file?

Re:roadkill

[flajann]

Google driver did enter a private road by mistake. There is now available a very sophisticated bit of technology that is guaranteed to ensure that this never happens again. I believe the scientific name for the device is a "gate".

Or even a more sophisticated piece of technology -- a simple passive sign printed on a plank of wood that says "PRIVATE".

Re:roadkill

[sbeckstead]

Wow, precisely my point. Now explain how that should apply to intellectual property as well.

I have slashdot people telling me that "If you don't want me to modify it and re-use it, don't write it and display it". Telling me that they believe that "if they can see it it is theirs".

Re:roadkill

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgot to add the link to my picture.

http://pics.livejournal.com/syncordi/pic/0006eafz

conflict resolution

[l2718]

Strike one for those who believe that not every dispute should be resolved in court, and not every resolution must involve money damages.

Re:conflict resolution

[deek]

"Strike one" or "Score one"?

This is certainly a case which didn't need to go to court. Google will quite happily remove their pictures if they want. Any anguish suffered was brought on by their own actions. Barely anyone would have seen the pictures had it not been publicised by the court case.

Anyway, the Boorings will probably be slapped with a bill from their lawyer, thus teaching them a very valuable lesson.

The Borings

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Judge Amy Reynolds Hay from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, granted Google's request for dismissing the lawsuit because "the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any count.""

Was that because they were too Boring?

Re:The Borings

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a Boring lava flow in Portland, Oregon, though I suspect it was actually quite interesting at the time. Dunno if Google has mapped it.

Re:The Borings

[Hoi Polloi]

The Borings lost a case but they uncovered a treasure trove of jokes at their expense.

"Hey, it's that Boring kid from school!"

this wasn't one of them, though

[Trepidity]

I agree that mistakes in sensitive privacy situations can be damaging. But this particular plaintiff, the court found, failed to show that it was damaging in their situation, which is the requirement to sue for damages. They claimed they suffered $25,000 in emotional anguish, and the court held that they didn't provide any plausible legal arguments to support that damage claim.

If we do think, as a matter of public policy, that even harmless violations should be penalized in order to discourage them, there's a way to do that: pass a law that establishes a fine for such violations. The fine, of course, should go to the government, not the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff actually was harmed. Public policy via, you know, actual laws and law enforcement, not ambulance-chasing lawyers and "mental-anguish"-inventing plaintiffs.

Re:this wasn't one of them, though

[Hao Wu]

I wonder how this judge would feel having her home exhibited thanks to Google. Suddenly she'd be good friends with Barbra Streisand...

Re:this wasn't one of them, though

[mdarksbane]

Seems like this should have been fairly simple to resolve. Kick the google van off their property (they did have "no trespassing" signs up) and have google remove the offending issues.

Assigning damaging here is ridiculous, aside from possibly some minor amount to cover the plaintiff's legal costs.

Re:this wasn't one of them, though

[sjames]

In many cases, there probably should be no punitive damages. Just correct the error somehow (turn the people into a blur or remove the photo) and all should be fine.

I agree on purely punitive damages. There are cases where a punitive aspect is reasonable, but by awarding it to the plaintiff, it contributes to the civil court as lottery problem we seem to have today. There are cases where amounts above and beyond provable actual expenses might be awarded to a plaintiff (when it actually isn't possible to make it right, such as permanent disability), but those should be distinct from punitive damages.

Re:this wasn't one of them, though

[TekPolitik]

Even without damage the plaintiffs here could have recovered nominal damages for the trespass, and maybe even aggravated damages or exemplary damages. The problem is they didn't even claim these damages. They tried to claim damages for something too remote from the trespass. Plus $25,000 was just silly.

Gold digging

[olddotter]

I bet if I stood out on the street and took pictures of their house and posted them on my blog they wouldn't notice or care. But Google has lots of cash, so they sue them.

I worry about Google knowing too much about me, but not about them taking a picture of the outside of my house.

Re:Gold digging

[Kinky Bass Junk]

If you stood out on the street and took pictures of my house, I'd fear for my family's safety.

Re:Gold digging

[Anonymous Coward]

"Deep Pockets" is the phrase for which you are looking. You're welcome.

Re:Gold digging

[TubeSteak]

I bet if I stood out on the street and took pictures of their house and posted them on my blog they wouldn't notice or care. But Google has lots of cash, so they sue them.

Unles you've got a high traffic/pagerank blog, they wouldn't notice or care because very few people would see the pictures.

Google Maps is a very high traffic site and having the pictures on it is not the same as hosting them on your blog.

Re:Gold digging

[Tubal-Cain]

Unles you've got a high traffic/pagerank blog, they wouldn't notice or care because very few people would see the pictures.

Streisand effect FTW!

Re:Gold digging

[jaavaaguru]

People take pictures of buildings all the time. If you took a picture of mine, I probably wouldn't notice... Unless you started doing it frequently. In which case, I may well take a picture of you. People are too paranoid.

Re:Gold digging

[Dreadneck]

True, Google Maps is a very high traffic site, but how much traffic does the particular street view location in question get?

Little to none, I'd wager.

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

Come to my private road. I'll beat your ass off of it -- so hard you'll forget the teeth you've lost.

These people want common decency and respect for privacy, and they know Google isn't offering it (since privacy is preserved post-breach via opt-out mouse clickery). Apparently a lawsuit is the only way they felt Google might start to give a shit.

You see this as predatory litigation -- I see this as one person actually standing up for the thousands that have been trespassed.

Re:Gold digging

[mcsqueak]

I bet if I stood out on the street and took pictures of their house and posted them on my blog they wouldn't notice or care. But Google has lots of cash, so they sue them.

You must not be a photographer. You have no idea how many weird situations I've gotten into because people are paranoid freaks.

I take photos of industrial architecture and, for lack of a better word, old junk (half torn down buildings, rusted bars that form neat shapes, old tractors without wheels, things like that). I've had plenty of private citizens and rent-a-cops (though no real cops) jump down my throat because they perceive me as some sort of "threat". It's really quite amusing, as if they would actually be interesting enough for me to waste my time on... a white guy with a big black camera sure is scary! *sigh*

Re:Gold digging

[bane2571]

Thanks to the Streisand effect mentioned above, my guess would be that that section of the street is now a very high traffic view.

Sometimes you have to wonder if people think things through. My house is on Google, but no one on the internet except me and my neighbors are ever likely to see it. Anyone wanting to see it already knows the address and can catch the 912 bus from my local railway station stop by for Coffee.

Re:Gold digging

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, calm down a little. Is physical violence your first solution to every problem? Meathead.

Re:Gold digging

[superdave80]

a white guy with a big black camera sure is scary!

They would probably get really freaked out if a big black guy with a white camera showed up!

Re:Gold digging

[Tacticus.v1]

And when you do that i would get you charged with assault and fucking sue you till all you have left is a pair of pants

Re:Gold digging

[Kral_Blbec]

Google is high traffic. Google Maps less so. Google maps streetview even less so. Google maps streetview, 54 nowhere street California much much less.

Re:Gold digging

[Kral_Blbec]

so now all we have to do is find the public transit system with a bus 912 near a train station that is in streetview! Why, I might as well be using your credit cards right now!

Re:Gold digging

[Kral_Blbec]

Assuming you are a professional photographer with a big camera bag, that is one story. Some dude with a little spy cam trying to hide that he is taking pictures is another.

Re:Gold digging

[mcsqueak]

They would probably get really freaked out if a big black guy with a white camera showed up!

Yeah, I'd ask him why he bought that POS limited edition white Pentax DSLR: http://nexus404.com/Blog/2008/12/17/pentax-limited-edition-k2000-white-dslr-k2000-double-zoom-slr-kit/. I would have told him an Nikon was a much choice. ;)

Re:Gold digging

[brusk]

Better yet, go with your invisible camera and make a big show of taking lots of pictures. That really freaks them out.

Re:Gold digging

[mcsqueak]

Yes, professional with professional quality equipment, and I never try and hide what I'm doing... I'm out there taking pictures with my big-ass camera. Which is also what makes it so weird that people want to confront me. If I was *trying* to be sneaky, I'd sit in a car and use a telephoto to snap pictures from several blocks away. I walk around with my camera in full view around my neck... it's kind of hard to hide a Nikon DSLR.

Re:Gold digging

[mcsqueak]

er... rather, I would have told him that a Nikon was a much better choice. Not sure what happened with my typing there....

Re:Gold digging

[Kral_Blbec]

In a public area I wouldnt even think twice about someone like that. If you were sitting across the street from my house behind a tree I would still have a word with ya regardless of if youre trying to hide or not.

Re:Gold digging

[Schemat1c]

Come to my private road. I'll beat your ass off of it -- so hard you'll forget the teeth you've lost.

Such strong, aggresive words typed anonymously over the internet from your computer while in your jammies. Maybe have another sippy of cocoa and you will feel better.

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

Not anonymous at all. And not an e-thuggery attempt either.

Privacy is something I will defend to ends even I cannot forsee. Make your jokes, but I hope you are wise enough to know that trespassing another man's land may get you hurt.

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

That is very American of you. I'm sure you are proud that you would commit a crime, induce response, and then sue.

Take your sue-happy attitude to private property where guns are held and your lawyer will not resurrect you.

As I said to another guy, I hope you are at least wise enough to understand that if you trespass another man's land you may end up hurt. Sounds to me like that would be your goal so you can cash in.

Re:Gold digging

[Vellmont]

I've had plenty of private citizens and rent-a-cops (though no real cops) jump down my throat because they perceive me as some sort of "threat".

The thing you have to understand is that most people learn about "terrorists" or "evil-doers" through movies and television. What's the first thing the people in movies/television do when planning a big heist? Take pictures. It's a standard movie plot line as it sets up part of the "planning stage" of the movie. Whether REAL "terrorists" or "evil doers" do this I couldn't say, but it doesn't really matter. In this sense, perception is reality.

Re:Gold digging

[LingNoi]

Google maps is high traffic but the particular street is not, hence number of viewers of the specific picture are in fact the same.

Re:Gold digging

[amRadioHed]

Violence as your primary means of problem solving, that is very American of you.

His crime of trespassing in no way justifies your crime of assault.

Re:Gold digging

[Tacticus.v1]

Trepass is not automatically a crime
and in most places you need to be asked and provided the means to leave before it can be considered a crime

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

Not my primary means of problem solving at all. Just my immediate response to this specific offense. A man's home is his castle--remember that.

Our military will protect our nation from invasion, just as I will protect my household from invasion.

Let the cards fall how they may, I hope you are wise enough to know what is real; your ideals won't save you from the millions of men like me that may (in your view) over-react to trespassers.

When you wake up at 3AM and a man is standing next to your bed, what is your idealist response then? Please don't tell me you embrace the importance of privacy only when it affects you. Lol.

And all the Bush-haters are upset about Bush+telecoms. Yet all the google fanboys don't seem to care about privacy in this case. I'm upset about *both* because I won't hold Google to a different standard.

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

Trepass is not automatically a crime
and in most places you need to be asked and provided the means to leave before it can be considered a crime

Do you have any references for this?

Back to my point: Your ideals won't save your stupid ass from a beating or a bullet. Wise up. The real world doesn't give a shit about you.

Re:Gold digging

[johnsonav]

Do you have any references for this?

This is from Wisconsin. Here you go: Wisconsin Statute 943.13 Trespass to Land.

Your ideals won't save your stupid ass from a beating or a bullet. Wise up.

Your beating or bullet won't save you from a civil suit or jail time. Wise up.

Re:Gold digging

[pnewhook]

For fuck sake, Google was not standing over the guys bed trespassing in his home. They accidentally drove up a private driveway, then removed the images when asked. Thats it. No invasion of privacy. No break and enter.

It was a stupid lawsuit and deserved to be thrown out.

Re:Gold digging

[pnewhook]

Your ideals won't save your stupid ass from a beating or a bullet. Wise up. The real world doesn't give a shit about you.

I love how these so called god fearing Christian Republicans will claim they will shoot you for setting one foot on their private property.

You do realize killing someone for simple trespass on your driveway will land you in jail for manslaughter. Or maybe you're too stupid.

Re:Gold digging

[WNight]

Totally reasonable. After all, tons of psychos dare the police to catch them before their crimes by doing daylight stakeouts of their potential victims. They always take a ton of photos of the outsides of the houses, it really turns them on or something.

But what you can be sure of is that it wasn't an architecture or art student, a real-estate photographer, a private investigator looking for someone else, bird-watcher checking out the birds in the chimney, or anything harmless.

Certainly it's a danger to your family. Your kids. They're the cutest ones in the whole world and it's amazing psychos haven't found them yet. Act quickly to ensure this breach is rectified.

Remember, for safety, never let anyone photograph your children. In fact, any men (and 10% of women) who see them will likely be driven to extremes of lust - prepare for group attacks where an entire mob tries to seize your children.

Seriously! If you aren't panicking you don't love your children!

Re:Gold digging

[DamnStupidElf]

A violent response to trespassing is uncalled for. If someone started shooting at me while I was driving/walking, I would shoot back.

Re:Gold digging

[WNight]

Jump out from nowhere, at an unmarked junction, and start threatening/assaulting a group of people and you might get not only a lesson in the legal marking requirements for private property, but also shot.

I'd suggest you hail them from a distance, and suggest in a friendly tone that they are on your land and you'd appreciate it if they weren't.

I see this as a retard who doesn't understand that we're all allowed to stand on public property and look around. Curtains are to limit the view so that you don't have to shoot your neighbors to achieve some privacy.

Re:Gold digging

[WNight]

Our military will protect our nation from invasion, just as I will protect my household from invasion.

Irrationally, without a sense of proportion, and ultimately uselessly.

You qualify to be Dubya's military advisor.

Re:Gold digging

[WNight]

A word is reasonable. It's a free society and you're allowed to ask why I'm taking pictures. But you aren't allowed to demand an answer, or that I stop, even if you, your house, car, or kid are in or even are the subject of my photos.

Re:Gold digging

[WNight]

Even if they did, would they go and take a hundred snaps at once while standing out like a sore thumb or would they walk through a few hundred times (like anyone go to work in the building would - get a job there if need be) pretending to talk on their cell-phone while instead snapping pics.

And if this is such a threat, why haven't they beaten us already given that they know how to draw?

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

For fuck sake, Google was not standing over the guys bed trespassing in his home. They accidentally drove up a private driveway, then removed the images when asked. Thats it. No invasion of privacy. No break and enter.

It was a stupid lawsuit and deserved to be thrown out.

Happened in 2 places in my own area that I found. This isn't just some individual case. They do this all over the place. Happened overseas, as read on slashdot, and has happened many many times here on our own turf.

The point is not to merely accept it because the majority of what they do is fine; but to understand that they systematically make these mistakes in their operations because they don't actually care to be careful because that takes work--thus placing those intruded upon in charge of looking for and requesting removal of this stuff.

I guess there is a difference in the way people view privacy. I see it as absolute, within the confines of all that I am and hold title to.

This suit carries merit on a much larger scale. That which will guide google to place care before haste.

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

You would shoot back, even if you just then realized you're bobbling through life, witlessly--- arriving on property that is not yours and doing things you were not permitted to do.

Is there no guilt in your presence? If you never care what you do, or how it may impact others, I guess you might have a point. Otherwise, you're at a loss.

Re:Gold digging

[legirons]

True, Google Maps is a very high traffic site, but how much traffic does the particular street view location in question get?

Less than the amount of real traffic visiting the real street...

Re:Gold digging

[Khyber]

Why fear? Have you been so brainwashed by the "War on Terror" that someone taking a picture of (what I'm assuming to be) a nice building would make you freak out and fear for your life?

Re:Gold digging

[smoker2]

You need to get some lotion for that neck of yours.

Re:Gold digging

[pnewhook]

So what you are saying is that your privacy is an absolute and you have the right to absolute privacy. Black and white - no middle ground.

Next time I see a tourist taking pictures that I happen to be in, I guess I'll just go beat the shit out of him and shoot him to boot. That'll learn 'em for violating my privacy.

Going to shoot every security camera I see too. How dare they record where I am and what I am doing. According to you I have the right to absolute privacy in everything I do.

Re:Gold digging

[Muad'Dave]

An employee of a retail establishment can ask you to leave, and if you don't, you can be charged with trespass. That seems to fit the bill. Just being in the store isn't trespass, but being in the store after being asked to leave is.

Re:Gold digging

[Muad'Dave]

I had an artsy-fartsy photography student come out of the big city and into 'the country', walk across my yard and start taking pictures of my C-Band satellite dish a few years ago. I calmly walked out and asked him why he thought he could just wander on to my property. He of course had no answer, and after giving him a lesson in civics and common courtesy, I let him finish taking his pictures.

If he'd knocked on the door and asked, I would've said yes, and even shown him some other photo-worthy farm machinery nearby. As it was, he only enforced the stereotype of the city slicker that thinks the country doesn't belong to anyone, and no one will mind if they trample about.

My biggest fear, unfortunately, is not theft, but liability if some trespasser breaks a leg.

Re:Gold digging

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I hope when you are reincarnated you are repeatedly raped in the ass as a child.

This shit is not a joke, one my girlfriends was raped as a little kid by some psycho who did exactly that.

Fucking moron.

Re:Gold digging

[Niris]

Unless his credit cards are like most Americans, and already maxed out.

Re:Gold digging

[hansamurai]

I love how these so called god fearing Christian Republicans

Huh? Can you still say so-called when he doesn't even call himself that? You so-called Mormon Monarchists sure say the darnedest things.

Re:Gold digging

[WNight]

Oh yeah, and it because it happened once everyone with a camera is a psycho! You truly are a genius. Why don't you go into business against the FBI. I figure you know how to spot psychos so reliably (which appears to be a combo of looking for a camera and failing to recognize sarcasm) that they'll just fold up and go home once you start making justice happen.

Truly, you are a god among men, not only for your profound wisdom and insight into new-age grammar, but also because your benevolence and humility are a beacon to everyone.

May we all, with time and patience, hope to attain such an enlightened level as your one day.

If the detective they sent to investigate the rape had a camera, did he rape your girlfriend as well? After all, it appears to be the camera that drove the psycho crazy. I mean, you seem so sure and you must have such high standards for evidence...

Go test reincarnation.

Re:Gold digging

[Anonymous Coward]

One time I was on vacation at the beach, and I got up early to photograph the sunrise. I was out on the beach with my camera and tripod, being very obvious about my activity. Once the sun was up, I walked back to the inn where I was staying with my girlfriend. As I walked around to the side of the building, walking down the driveway to the kitchen entrance, I saw a flower lit up by the sun. I stopped and took a photo. Immediately a woman ran up from the street accusing me of "photographing through the bathroom window." I showed her the picture on my camera (thank you for digital photography), and handed her my business card. Thank God I wasn't shooting film... who knows how that would have gone. She went away and I didn't hear anything else about it. MOST people, 99.9999% of people, with a camera mean absolutely no harm. Just because something bad happened once, doesn't mean it always will. Put your alarmist thinking aside and be reasonable (as in, use your mind, not your fears).

Re:Gold digging

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow WNight, you register like a 900 on the stupid-asshole-ometer!

Re:Gold digging

[StikyPad]

Probably a lot more than manslaughter.. At least Murder 2, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within city limits if you happen to live in a city.. and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure a DA would come up with a few more.

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

When you take the concept of private home and property out of context and assume it to be your 'personal bubble' in public places, I suppose you might have a point.

But in this case we are not talking about that.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear this up for you.

Re:Gold digging

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you suggest I deal with death wishes from lying trolls? Pretend to give a shit?

On the off chance that the first AC wasn't just a troll, I'd heap more scorn upon them. That's the kind of juvenile fallacy I'd expect to hear from a troll. Any person old enough to vote had better be able to understand that one anecdote doesn't make a pattern.

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

Your ideals won't save your stupid ass from a beating or a bullet. Wise up. The real world doesn't give a shit about you.

I love how these so called god fearing Christian Republicans will claim they will shoot you for setting one foot on their private property.

You do realize killing someone for simple trespass on your driveway will land you in jail for manslaughter. Or maybe you're too stupid.

I am not christian nor republican. Fail #1.

We are talking about private roads, not short driveways immediately next to public streets. Fail #2.

Your assumptions and ignorance to the topic at hand are ridiculous.

Bring on the -1 fanboys! Mod me down for clarifying the discussion for this idiot. mod him up, even though he speaks misinformation. I guess even Truth can't come between a slashdot mod and the blind love for google.

Re:Gold digging

[Kral_Blbec]

Depends on you. For a general snap shot that happens to have my family, that may be true. On the other hand, your behavior of taking repeated pictures of private property can be reasonable cause for suspicion in and of itself. So the picture taking itself might not be illegal per se, but coupled with other factors it might raise reasonable suspicion.

Re:Gold digging

[pnewhook]

Bring on the -1 fanboys! Mod me down for clarifying the discussion for this idiot. mod him up, even though he speaks misinformation. I guess even Truth can't come between a slashdot mod and the blind love for google.

I'm the idiot when you are claiming it is perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Get a grip.

Re:Gold digging

[WNight]

Not unless you rule out reasonable motives first. It's legal to sit and shoot pictures of the bird on your roof, all day long.

My point is that unreasonable suspicion (assuming the person photoing your house is hostile, despite their lack of attempt to hide) does not justify stopping the photographer. It's not a matter of what the homeowner feels comfortable with. Nobody asked. That's what curtains and fences are for.

Re:Gold digging

[joocemann]

I'm the idiot when you are claiming it is perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Get a grip.

I never said it was perfectly ok to shoot someone for taking a picture. Again, you misinform/assume. Why can't you at have an honest conversation?

What I've said is that I would defend my property to the point of physical action like a beatdown. I've also made the point that many people in this country might shoot you if they found you on their land, pictures or not. I'm not talking about right or wrong (read: perfectly ok), but rather what is real.

I'm sorry you have a hard time with reading comprehension and controlling your propensity to draw false assumptions. Not sure I can help you with the root of the issue, but at least my replies are helping you to get a clearer picture of what is real. Fyi, I'm an agnostic social liberal.

Re:Gold digging

[onepoint]

>> A violent response to trespassing is uncalled for.

I live in Florida currently, the guy up the block ( nice guy too ), has a MOTE ( It's called it a mighty huge drainage canal legally but this thing is far wider than the rest of them), 6 ft. fence on his side of the mote, a regular hedge with a railing on the public side of the mote, and a draw-bridge.

He does not like strangers and I would not visit him at night due to the fear of getting shot. trespass sign's are everywhere. Nice guy but his response if you made it on to his property would be a gun.

in the above case, that guy just wants to be left alone, he built his walls, and does not want to be bothered, you show up in his backyard, you are most likely doing something wrong

Re:Gold digging

[DamnStupidElf]

Sure, fences I understand. Stepping onto someone's lawn because there's trash on the sidewalk or to pass people on a busy street is not trespassing. Driving down a road in the country with poor road signs and rural delivery makes it hard to find the right place that you're looking for. Pulling into someone's driveway and asking if they are the person you're looking for can not reasonably be considered trespassing. How else would people visit a person with "no trespassing" signs for the first time?

Re:Gold digging

[onepoint]

if your old enough to remmember, the rules of sense ( common or not ) was always to pull up next to the driveway, get out of your car, wave, say hello and walk slowly asking for direction.

given that's what I still do, I don't go into anyone's driveway unless I am turning around.

pulling into someones driveway is a sure sign that you might not have some manners and are to be dealt with as such.

give you another way to look at it:
if you ever fish for trout on streams that cut into peoples back yards and real hard to get to , you know that you need to get the ok to walk on their land otherwise you might end up wading 1 or 2 miles to that special place( no choice on that, there is no high water line space to walk). traditional way to handle that is to show up about end of summer and say hello ( better yet get a friend to introduce you ), then you have a drink with them, talk about everything, and let your friend bring up the ok to pass their yard ( maybe even park in their drive way ). getting that ok, you start writing writing letters to them so that they don't forget you. and on opening day, you bring a huge basket of thanks ( 2 or 3 loaves of bread, some jams, cheese and other goodies ) and on the way back after fishing you give some of your catch up as a thank you.

Over time this becomes a tradition, which includes happy holiday calls, invites to your beach house, thanksgiving goodies and other things.

I had this type of relationship with 2 people on a fantastic trout stream in NJ and with a lovely older lady on the south shore of Long Island for striper fishing. I passed the tradition on to another fisherman that would keep it going and to this day I still send out cards and invites to Florida.

just a friendly way of doing everything.

obama is pounding you in the ass

[Anonymous Coward]

get ready for it, honky bitch. he's got that big dick up your faggot slope.

Copyright infringement?

[Teancum]

If you drew up original house plans and had your house built to specification, could you make a copyright claim about photos of your house under U.S. Copyright law, as a "3-D work of art"?

Better yet, if you took photos of your house and made a deposit of those photos together with the blueprints, would the Library of Congress accept the copyright registration (for statutory damages)?

Just thinking this couple didn't think creatively enough here for the proper law that could be used for a suit.

Heck, patent the driveway of your home (this was about Google using a private road to get a view of their house) and get a lawsuit on Google for patent infringement for duplicating the "aesthetics" of the driveway design into Google Earth, including form and function.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[Vellmont]

could you make a copyright claim about photos of your house under U.S. Copyright law, as a "3-D work of art"?

No. Taking a picture of your house isn't "copying" it. Taking the plans of your house and building an exact copy of it _might_ be a violation of copyright.

Just thinking this couple didn't think creatively enough here for the proper law that could be used for a suit.

No, the couple are just money grubbers looking for a payday from someone with deep pockets. Sometimes people just have no case.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[cduffy]

No. Taking a picture of your house isn't "copying" it. Taking the plans of your house and building an exact copy of it _might_ be a violation of copyright.

If only common sense reigned, this would be so. See ASMP's page on photographing public buildings; not every building is impacted, but I've seen cases where museums and the like claimed that the architecture of the building itself constitutes a work of art, and that photography of the same was forbidden.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[langelgjm]

No. Taking a picture of your house isn't "copying" it. Taking the plans of your house and building an exact copy of it _might_ be a violation of copyright.

Because we signed the Berne Convention, we recognize copyright in architectural works. However, we make exceptions for photographs, etc., of buildings that are in public places.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[Kral_Blbec]

but since taking a picture could help it be rebuilt in the same form, couldnt that be "making it accesible"? Better not get the RIAA on this...

Re:Copyright infringement?

[Vellmont]

See ASMP's page on photographing public buildings

I read the page. The take home is that a douche-bag could sue you (a photographer) and cost you a lot of money for buildings built after 1990, so better get permission first. That's really always the case anyway.

The context we're operating in here is Google, with nearly unlimited resources vs. a couple trying to make a payday. They really have no case here, and never did. There's simply no way to spin this into a big payday.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[Speare]

US Copyright law specifically disallows the copyright claim against presentation of architecture. However, there are stupid cities who buy sculptures from asshole artists, where the artist retains copyright claim against the presentation of said sculptures. (See Chicago's "bean".) The city should simply state flat out: it's a public work of art, photographs of the presentation is just a fact of life.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[Muad'Dave]

But taking a digital snapshot [rip] of a CD is?

Re:Copyright infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>The take home is that a douche-bag could sue you (a photographer) and cost you a lot of money for buildings built after 1990, so better get permission first.

Not entirely true. From the same ASMP article:

"As long as the building is in a public place, or visible - and photographable - from a public place, there is no infringement of the building's copyright owner's rights. This rule includes private as well as public buildings."

Tresspassing no longer exists?

[karl.auerbach]

As I read it Google was trespassing on private property and took photos while on that private property. The court says it is OK for Google to keep the photos.

OK, suppose now that I just happen to wander into Google 's offices in Mountain View while a receptionist is in the bathroom and go into the building and take photos of Google's stuff.

I guess under this ruling I would get to keep my photos?

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[jfruhlinger]

They didn't file a criminal tresspass complaint; they sued them for civil damages. You can see why, though; presumably fines for tresspassing are relatively negligable, probably in the range of three or four digits, so it's not like they'd change Google's behavior. Of course, $25K is equally peanuts for them.

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on whether or not the plaintiffs clearly posted the road as private property. Otherwise it's a pretty benign mistake to accidentally drive the Google van up it.

-IANAL

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

A private road doesn't necessarily mean that it's private property. It just means that maintenance of the road is not the responsibility of the local city/county, etc. Of course, the road could be on private property, in which case it seems some kind of no trespassing sign or a gate would be in order.

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[joocemann]

hahaha.. i just posted about this.

+5 for COMMON SENSE.

Those stupid camera cars need to *KNOW* what they are doing *BEFORE* they do it. Currently, they just breach privacy and allow people to opt-out of being put on public display. That is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

What's the difference between a knowing-trespasser and an unkonwing trrespasser? Simple -- only one of them knows what might be coming to them.

Privacy > Google Fanaticism.

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[kiwijapan]

It doesn't seem to matter to Google whether or not you mark the property as private property. This is not the first time the Google maps van has entered property they had no right to. They have previously ignored clearly posted "No Trespassing" signs and entered private property: Google Maps Trespassing Again.

Trespassing does exist; it's just a matter of whether or not the property owner decides to enforce it or not - and Google saying that they provide opt-out functionality to removed pictures from Google Maps is no excuse for blatantly ignoring the "No Trespassing" signs in the first place. This is like saying I can get away with selling door-to-door even to households with "No Hawking" signs posted (which to be honest most door-to-door salespeople do anyway).

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I was under the impression that (in a lot of places, I don't know about where these people live) it's only trespass if the area is marked as some way.

For instance, let's say that you live on a corner, and you have a big lawn. It's legal for me to cut across your lawn. However, if you have a fence around it, or a sign that says 'gtfo my lawn,' then I can't.

Regardless, it's certainly legal to take a picture from public property, ie, the street. Now, if you look, where their house is is pretty close to the street. Yeah, they're on a 'private lane,' but it's not very long. Who knows if their sign was even up or not? Of course, they'll say it was... but was it really?

If you tried to walk into Google's office and start snapping pictures, they could certainly ask you to stop. It's a pretty poor analogy.

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[Dachannien]

No. This wasn't a ruling on the merits of the case, but rather a ruling on a failure to follow the rules governing court cases. Someone else could file a suit against Google, and this time not suck at it, and the case would proceed, probably without making any reference to the case discussed above.

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[nedlohs]

No, the reason why is that criminal trespass fines would go to the government, whereas civil damages would go to the plaintiffs. They didn't want to set a precedent or punish google or discourage google from going it again. They wanted some cash.

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[joocemann]

Look at us getting modded down by google fanboys.

Fuck privacy, so long as the company you like is breaching it, right?

If Bush did this, we would have +5 Insightful.

This is killing my faith in slashdot.

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[WNight]

If any private citizen walked around and took pictures from public land and published them online they'd have a website like mine. What did Google do that I did not, except accidentally stray onto private property in a small number of cases?

How does this compare to Bush wiretapping all domestic and foreign phone calls, hoping to get lucky and make up convictions after the fact?

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[smoker2]

Or in your case, fuck freedom unless it's YOUR freedom we're talking about.
Asshole.

Re:Tresspassing no longer exists?

[anegg]

I live on a private road. I think it is fairly likely that a private road will be on private property. The road I live on is private property, with a "road use" agreement between the six property owners using the road, one of whom actually owns the property the road is on.

A "No Trespassing" sign or gate is not a reasonable requirement, as it may deter expected usage, such as deliveries, guests, etc. It would also be unreasonable if we were to call the police every time a car drove down our "private road."

However, if a Google Maps vehicle "accidentally" drove down our private road, and we found the data on-line, I think it would be reasonable for us to be able to request that Google Maps remove the private road view from their public servers. Making a view public that was gathered from a private location without explicit permission from the owner isn't reasonable in my opinion.

To use the curtilage principle brought up elsewhere, if a picture of my residence is taken from a public area, I don't think I should be able to complain. But if someone enters my property's "publically accessible area" (curtilage) to take pictures of my residence, I think they have gone beyond a reasonable use of that area and I should have a basis for a claim against them.

Military bases?

[mi]

There is a serious discussion to be had about privacy rights and Google's objective to picture, reference and catalog everything. Some inside Google take the "do no evil" to heart. Street View blurs faces and license plates.

One would expect them to worry at least as much and blur the military bases of their own and friendly nations... You know, the gals and guys, who ensure that Google (and its, supposedly, privacy-minded insiders) can continue to exist...

Re:Military bases?

[brusk]

You would expect the US and allied militaries to be on the ball enough to tell them to do so. Google does blur lots of military installations, but can't be expected to blur every possible base because they don't know beforehand where they are. This is a failure by the Pentagon, not by Google.

Re:Military bases?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two points to that:
1) If everyone knows the base is there and can see inside (from the fence, or with binoculars on a nearby hilltop, etc.), then blurring the satellite image is a bit of a waste of time. Anyone serious about finding out what is going on there would be able to do better than use Google Earth/Maps.

2) The base was, you know, secret. The Pentagon may have thought it was better to just hope that no-one noticed it, rather than give a list of potential targets to any terrorist who happened to be working for Google, or who had produced an app to check Google maps for updated satellite images and look to see what changed.

So does this mean that...

[joocemann]

... I can, with the guise of ignorant bobbling-through life, show up on private land that Google owns --- take a lot of pictures and put them on public display for the world and then wait for google to e-mail me and remove them *if* they don't like it?

Privacy apparently isn't a big deal nowadays...

(I hope you google fanboys don't mod me down just because you like street view. Every time I post about how google, via negligent activity, wrongly trespasses on peoples land, I get modded down.)

That stupid car shows up on my private property and they'll be lucky to leave with all their blood.

Re:So does this mean that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, look. You were right. They modded you down.

Re:So does this mean that...

[Rycross]

You know, your posts really paint you as an extremely violent and ill-tempered person. I'm going to wager that you are not a violent person, so you may want to try not to come off as such an internet-tough-guy.

That being said, I mostly agree with you. If something like this happened once, by accident, then removal of the pictures and a good talking-to would probably be in order. Its typically not well-advised to sue people or companies over simple accidents that can be resolved amicably. The question in my mind is whether Google is repeatedly doing this, whether on purpose or on accident, and whether appropriate information is there for Google to avoid this.

If the appropriate information isn't there, then I'm going to call no-foul on Google's part and wag my finger at the city and the property owners for not properly making public where public property ends and private property begins. One cannot reasonably hold someone accountable if they cannot tell what is private or public property.

I'm guessing, however, that the information is out there. So the question is whether this is a one-off accident, systematic negligence, or a beg-forgiveness-instead-of-ask-permission case. If its negligence, then Google needs to be fined and held accountable. If its the latter... then they need to be hit hard.

Re:So does this mean that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we discussing Google as though the entire company has made the decision to trespass or not to trespass? As far as I know, the trespassing issues have come from a single google maps car, not all of them (assuming they do indeed have a fleet). Thus, it would be on the heads of the camera car's drivers to have made the decision to trespass or not. If they submit photos which don't show a "Private property" sign, how are the maps guys back at headquarters going to know what's private?

I'd have slammed the individuals driving the mapmobile first, as they're far more likely to be deterred from further trespassing by that measly 4-digit fine, and it would also alert other drivers for Google to be on the lookout, as opposed to screaming and fussing for the entire company to get down on its knees and apologize.

What is it about people that they always want to go for the top of an organization when the way to move mountains is to start at the base?

Re:So does this mean that...

[brusk]

Because that's how the legal system works, and quite rightly so. If I get sick from a bad batch of cornflakes, I sue Kellogg's, not the guy who was working at the factory that day, even if it was his sneezing in the flakerator that made me sick. I happen to think that's good public policy: it will encourage Kellogg's to make sure its operations prevent this kind of thing from happening again. If the only person I could sue were the employee, there would be no incentive for Kellogg's to clean up their act and they would dump all the blame on the "bad apple." That's an upside of treating corporations as persons under the law (there are downsides as well, of course).

Re:So does this mean that...

[interkin3tic]

That stupid car shows up on my private property and they'll be lucky to leave with all their blood.

I've heard that in several european countries, Scotland for one, there is no law against walking onto someone else's land, provided you don't damage it. It seems a bit more complicated and debatable than that, but it seems clear that you can hike through someone's farmland and they have no legal right to shoot you. Not the case obviously in the US. What's with our trespassing obsession? I step foot on your land, you'll injure me just because you can? Is it that we think everyone is out to get us?

Re:So does this mean that...

[Anonymous Coward]

The legal system allows us to sue corporations, yes. The issue I have is that the corporation wasn't the one who told this guy to ignore Private Property signs, at least as far as we know. They seem to be denying that pretty strongly, and my guess is that no one really knew what had gone on except the drivers, until long after the pictures were taken.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the law would just as well allow you to sue the driver of the vehicle that trespassed as the company he was working for. The difference is in scale - as other posters have said, either way, the cost of one lawsuit isn't going to be monetary incentive to do anything. The media coverage might be, but you don't necessarily need to sue someone to make the news.

If Google or Kellogg's wants to blame the mistake on one "bad apple", let them. It could be the truth. If it's not the truth, it'll happen again and then you have two incidents to base a bigger lawsuit on.

You can not force people to follow company policy; no matter how many lawsuits you throw at Kellogg's there will always be one factory worker who decides he doesn't need his mask and sneezes in your corn flakes. All of us who have worked under someone know that there are plenty of opportunities to cut corners and break rules. Holding the corporation responsible for some assembly worker's bad idea is just one more way of relieving us of our own responsibility for actions on the job - actions which are supposed to uphold the company's reputation.

It's entirely possible the guy's gonna get fired, since I'm sure they know exactly who it was driving the van that day. That is as it should be. Doesn't mean you have to sue the company over it, if they've removed the source of the problem already.

Re:So does this mean that...

[joocemann]

It is definitely systematic negligence/disregard. I have observed this personally.

A few months ago, in my local area I was checking out street view and reported for removal 2 separate places that I knew were private roads and are clearly marked as such.

Google got back to me that they had removed it, but that does not change the fact as to what happened. It is quite obvious that their approach is to do what they want, then, if questioned, apologize and attempt to undo it.

I am not an extremely violent person, nor am I posing as an internet-toughguy. I am a mature and civil adult that will defend privacy to great extent; that is all. If I woke up in the middle of the night and you happened to be in my home, you would be hurt very badly unless you had the means to hurt me first.

Its a shame the google-fanboy mods out there don't have the integrity to protect privacy for others when such privacy is invaded by their prized e-totem of happiness. I guess google will have to start tracking all of their internet usage and making it public before they might start caring.

The people who mod me down for my expressed anger toward invasion of privacy are quite likely the same people who cry about Bush+Telecoms. But they don't like Bush.

Re:So does this mean that...

[joocemann]

Google, as a company, is responsible for the actions it makes. In this case, the standard operating procedure involves negligent disregard for privacy.

Maybe google will hold its individual car drivers' responsible, but since they are not enforcing such respects for law/privacy, they should as a whole be accountable for such actions.

Re:So does this mean that...

[onepoint]

yes, I recall that the queen of England one had a trespasser in her house, but they could only remove him from the home and not file trespassing charges.

don't forget, The USA had to deal with having to house the British during a war to gain the independent. it's manifested itself within the trespass laws.

I myself have a no trespass sign on my walkway, and a gate. The gate is rigged so that when you open it at night a dog starts barking . I think it's funny, but if it keeps barking or my porch alarm hits I get my gun.

I have a thing about those holy joe's that come around my house, it's call the bad sprinkler system, works wonders. nothing better than on a Saturday morning (cold day) activating it when they are knocking on the door. I really need to set up a video cam.

Re:So does this mean that...

[WNight]

I am a mature and civil adult that will defend privacy to great extent; that is all. If I woke up in the middle of the night and you happened to be in my home

Oh, by privacy you mean safety. Because yes, certainly someone was in your house without your knowledge or permission they could be a threat.

Here we thought you were freaked out by something trivial like someone standing on the street taking pictures that included your house.

Hah hah. How dumb that would be.

Re:So does this mean that...

[jaclu]

In sweden all general land areas are per definition public, only exception is the imediate surroundings of a house, farming fields with crops growing and of course military/industrial sites. But the later are not realy a problem, typicaly they are fenced.

Mostly it works quite ok, if you walk through the forest and happen to come upon a house, you just keep more or less out of sight, or at least outside the parts where they have cut the grass short. In the rural areas people quite often doesnt bother with fences, unless they want to keep animals out or in.

So its a nice country for trecking!

Re:So does this mean that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try shooting someone just for walking on your land in the US, see how that works out for you. Despite what your local gun-toting lunatic might tell you, it ain't legal, it ain't moral, and it ain't American. You can tell them to leave and go from there, but unless they pose a danger to you shooting them is proof that you belong behind bars, at best.

Re:So does this mean that...

[Anonymous Coward]

sneezing in the flakerator

oh god, that made me laugh so hard. now i have to explain myself to my coworkers...

Re:So does this mean that...

[swillden]

it seems clear that you can hike through someone's farmland and they have no legal right to shoot you. Not the case obviously in the US.

I don't know of any jurisdiction in the US where someone has a legal right to shoot you for ordinary trespassing. Not even Texas. Many states have "Castle Doctrine" laws, which say that if you break into a residence the owner can shoot you, but that's entirely different from walking on someone's fields.

Further, no US state that I'm aware of (and I've read the relevant laws of a lot of them) allows trespassing charges to be brought unless it has been made clear to the trespasser that he or she should not be there, either by a personal warning, a fence or signage (that is sufficiently prominent and placed so that the person should have seen it) indicating that trespassing is not allowed.

If there is no fence, and no signs and you trespass, then the owner can ask you to leave. If you don't, you're trespassing. If you do, you were technically trespassing but cannot be cited or charged.

In general, in the US, you can go anywhere you want as long as it's not fenced off or posted "no trespassing". And anyone who shoots you for going where you want is breaking the law unless you're breaking and entering.

Check your local laws to be sure what I'm saying is right in your jurisdiction, but I'll be shocked if it's not.

Re:So does this mean that...

[stewbacca]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, explains our violent, gun-crazy culture here in the good ole USofA. Paranoia, insecurity and materialistic tendencies--mixed with a dash of nationalism, and some whacked out views on gun rights...voila!

You know, our daughters used to be able to go door-to-door and sell Girl Scout cookies, but now days, they are more likely to be assaulted than a homeowner is. You privacy freaks suffer from a completely out-of-proportion reaction to a made-up threat. It's like wearing a parachute on a commercial flight, or wearing a motorcycle helmet while driving your car.

Re:So does this mean that...

[StikyPad]

You can't shoot someone just for walking on your land. You can't even shoot them if they refuse to leave. They have to present a clear and present danger beyond their mere presence to take any physical action against them. Most you can legally get away with is telling them to leave and calling the cops, but if they leave before the cops get there, it's very unlikely they'll even get a trespassing charge.

Re:So does this mean that...

[joocemann]

This is about PRIVATE roads (streets), not public streets. The street, too, is private.

I am glad to clear this up for you.

Re:So does this mean that...

[WNight]

Oh my god, a case of trespassing. Someone needs killin'

I understood all along, I just don't give a shit about your private property or your little ape-like routine in defense of it. Seeing someone uninvited in your house would be a threat, seeing them on a private street outside your house would be... Odd.

Ugh, Ugh, Monkey Man.

Re:So does this mean that...

[joocemann]

Well then, what's so wrong about the government listening in on your phone calls? Its just a phone call, right? Not like they stepped in and interrupted you or anything.

Surely you care about that.

I hope your lackadaisic approach to privacy in this case is not driven by unquestioned faith in google. These encroachments are widespread and systematic, not individual cases.

The individual offense is not what I take issue with, but rather the systematic disregard that leads to the offense in such high frequency. Make an effort to inform yourself. Identify private roads you know of, go on streetview and look. I've already done this and found two in my local area, which is why I'm quite passionate about this topic.

Quite apparently, we don't all share the same common respect to privacy. Surely most people here do care, but this is not about privacy; rather it is whether we love google enough to ignore systematically offensive acts.

Ugh Ugh!
(pounds chest)

Re:So does this mean that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it that we think everyone is out to get us?

Yes. Because they are.

Re:So does this mean that...

[WNight]

Certainly a fine is appropriate for this. From $5 - $5000 depending on whose mistake it was and what they had done to prevent it.

And beyond that, yes again. Full-blown conspiracy charges if they can prove this was a result of higher-ups collusion. Fines of 500 * the expected profits from those pieces, etc. Definitely corruption needs to be stopped and we aren't going to stop it at the Enron levels if we don't stop it at the lower levels too.

We value privacy as well, and have laws to protect/assure it. Trespassing, harassment, various peeping and anti-recording laws, etc.

But realistically, it's easy to walk/drive onto private property without noticing the signs, or without knowing where else to go. Both of those are valid reasons, imho, for people to breach 'private property' signs. After all, the sign just warns of the obvious - someone owns everything. But we walk/drive on various semi-public pieces of private property all day, like driveways, sidewalks, front path/steps, etc.

An actual 'No Trespassing' sign means that, but is it trespass for instance (in a lay-meaning, lawyers need not apply) to go knock on your door if I think there's something you need to know urgently enough?

To achieve, in a way that means "no really, I'll be pissed if you set a single foot on here", needs a BIG sign - one you can't miss. A marked fence (colored plastic tape woven through a fence, between trees, etc. So that there's not a single view of the property that doesn't mark it as off-limits.

If you aren't doing that it's silly and a bit rude to expect your land to remain untouched in any way.

It simply seems out of proportion. Private land is, yes, and you have some expectation of privacy, but not half as much as if you put up a gate, an unmissable sign... like curtains for your property.

Even if it is annoying though, what's the threat? Seeing someone on your private property is, I repeat, odd. Also maybe annoying. Seeing them in your house without permission is scary. The police deal with odd and annoying.

Or Just Working...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Most of the time when you see someone standing in the street taking pictures of your house, they are real estate appraisers shooting photos of the comparables for their report. They're usually harmless. Either that or your wife is up on the roof naked again.

Re:Or Just Working...

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Either that or your wife is up on the roof naked again.

I knew it would be something simple!

Re:Or Just Working...

[BenoitRen]

You must have forgotten that you were posting on Slashdot. People here don't have such a thing as a "wife".

Re:Or Just Working...

[Anonymous Coward]

Basements don't typically have a roof, either.

All cleaned up now.

[AltGrendel]

they have since removed the image. But if you look carefully, you can see the deer on the left before it got hit.

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking one law doesn't make everything else you do a crime. Taking photos isn't a crime unless your truly invading someones privacy. The mistake that Google made was trespassing and nothing more. The photos are still legit unless they showed the owners sunbathing nude or having sex in the living room window. That would be a true invasion of privacy and something worth suing over.

If you could manage to get inside of Google and take pictures then yes, anything you photograph is yours to keep. What you do with said photos though is another mater. The most someone can do is ask you to leave when your on private property or call the cops. They can't take your film or camera. If they do, charge them with theft.

Re:Yes

[Fastolfe]

What you do with said photos though is another mater.

It should go without saying that if your intent is to take pictures of someone's trade secrets, and exploit those somehow, that's a form of industrial espionage that's most certainly illegal in the US. I don't know if the pictures could be confiscated, but that would be the least of your worries, I think.

Re:Yes

[WNight]

It's not a trade secret if you can wander in off the street and take its picture. You can't sue the pizza-guy because he saw your prototype beyond the opened door.

If you got a job there under false pretenses, intending to steal secrets, then it would be treated as such. (Assuming of course, that is really was a secret and people couldn't just walk in off the street...)

American Judge dismisses frivolous Lawsuit ???

[tg123]

nah couldn't be must be dreaming .....

someone wake me up .

Maybe...

[gbutler69]

...but, when you try to beat me down for walking on your drive-way, I may just bash your stupid fucking head in in self-defense! Jack-Ass!

Google blured VP Cheney's house, why not this one?

[karl.auerbach]

Google blurred the satellite photo of the US Naval observatory in DC, a public building, in order to protect VP Cheney.

If Google is willing to protect the privacy of a public figure than it ought to be even more protective of the privacy of a private homeowner by burring a photo taken while being a non-invited intruder on that homeowner's own property.

calculated risk

[Scrameustache]

Google blurred the satellite photo of the US Naval observatory in DC, a public building, in order to protect VP Cheney.

If Google is willing to protect the privacy of a man who can shoot you in the face with impunity

FTFY

Re:Google blured VP Cheney's house, why not this o

[nedlohs]

Which is exactly what they did, you just need to ask as I'm sure the whitehouse/pentagon/navy/ did.

http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/faq.html#q6

But seriously taking a still picture from a public place without even using a telephoto lens seems a bit of a stretch to label "intruder".

My vacation snap shots have numerous people I don't know in them, and numerous houses in the background too. The photos of my kid playing in the yard has the neighbors house in it too. Are you seriously suggesting I should thus not let anyone see them?

Grey areas...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Maps to "Tallahassee, FL" and drag the little yellow man onto the map without releasing the mouse button. Almost all the streets light up blue, indicating Street View. Of course, some extremely remote and rural streets aren't included, but that's par for the course.

But wait. See the white spot in the middle of the city? It's almost like the Street View drivers intentionally excluded that area.

That's Florida A&M University, a historically black state university--originally the State Normal College for Colored Students. Surrounding it is an economically depressed, predominantly black neighborhood. Nobody will deliver pizza there after dark.

I cannot imagine Google intentionally excluding it just because of race. It's not a safety issue either--it's nowhere near being a "carjackings in broad daylight" kind of place.

I'd love to know how that happened. Could Google have a policy telling drivers to avoid areas that make them feel uncomfortable? Needless to say, the presence of run-down houses and large numbers of black people does make some people feel uncomfortable, regardless of the reality of personal safety.

Also, where do I sign up to be a Street View driver?

That would just be silly and expensive.

[falconwolf]

Nothing more.

Nothing more if you don't care about privacy.

One of the first things we learned in the photography class I took in college was that photographing and selling the photos of someone's house is illegal in some places without the owner signing a release form, just as it's illegal to photograph people who are clearly identifiable in public and selling those photos. The only tyme it is legal when a release form is not signed but the photo is sold is if it is used as part of an editorial. Now, it may be legal in some places but not everywhere.

Falcon

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Google isn't selling said photos.

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[TheLink]

Question: Can I take lots of pictures of people in public, arrange them, put them on a website and then collect ad revenue?

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[camcorder]

Of course not, they are doing all those stuff for charity. Real success of Google is milking money and increasing profit almost every quarter, yet making people think they are not making money out of their services.

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[dougisfunny]

Are the people the subject matter?

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[Dekortage]

Google isn't selling said photos.

What's the difference between selling the photos, versus selling advertising on the backs of free photos? It is still about making money.

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[Ash Vince]

.... just as it's illegal to photograph people who are clearly identifiable in public and selling those photos.

Yet there is an entire industry that does just this to people in the public eye. Is there some legal exemption for people who have been previously in same lame film or made a pop song?

Or are you in fact talking complete and utter rubbish.

If there was such a law you can bet people like Brad Pitt and Britney Spears would be using it regularly to get some privacy from the Paparazzi.

There is only one law I can think of that this would break, and that MIGHT be Sharia Law, but since I am not an expert on the Qur'an I am not even sure of that.

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[mdwh2]

Actually, I believe that courts have ruled in some cases based on whether the person was a celebrity, and whether it was therefore in the public interest. Which I don't think is unreasonable, because these people get their fame (and hence, fortune) from all the publicity in the first place - they can't have it both ways.

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[NeoSkandranon]

Curious where you're living Falon, as in the US my understanding is that if you take a photo on public grounds then there's not much the subject (or the owner of, in the case of property being photographed) can do to influence what you do with it later on.

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[falconwolf]

.... just as it's illegal to photograph people who are clearly identifiable in public and selling those photos.

Yet there is an entire industry that does just this to people in the public eye. Is there some legal exemption for people who have been previously in same lame film or made a pop song?

And that's supposed to be news. I said editorials but should have included news as well. On the other hand I can't go down to the lake near me and shoot photos of people at the park then sell them without a release form if the people are clearly identifiable. In my photography class we spent more than a day discussing what was legal and what wasn't. Actually back then as it was right around 9-11 people were being stopped for shooting photos by the police. Police tried to confiscate one student's camera. Shortly after that a lawyer came out with The Photographer's Right handbook.

The rest of what you say is rubbish.

Falcon

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[falconwolf]

Curious where you're living Falon, as in the US my understanding is that if you take a photo on public grounds then there's not much the subject (or the owner of, in the case of property being photographed) can do to influence what you do with it later on.

I live in the US, and your understanding is wrong. There actually is no one right or wrong answer, it's complex. "Photo Law - Your Right to Take Pictures in Public" is an introduction to the laws.

Falcon

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[mea37]

IANAL, but after a little digging around I believe the answer is...

You can take the pictures (so long as the people are publically visible).

You can arrange them how you like and put them on a website.

Whether you can collect ad revenue would come down in part to whether doing so were deemed a commercial use of the pictures. I don't know if that's been clearly determined. While it's not as obvious as if you're selling prints, I'd call it a grey area and in truth I'd lean toward calling it commercial use. But what research I've done (whcih I'll grant isn't extensive) hasn't yielded an answer.

Even if the use is deemed commercial, you still might be ok, depending on the pictures. Everyone has the right to the commercial use of their own likeness, but they'd still have to show that their likeness created commercial value for your website. (Just because I'm in a picture, doesn't necessarily mean that the picture wouldn't be just as valuable without me; i.e. sometimes either my identity, or the presence of anyone at all, doens't matter to the picture's value.)

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nothing more if you don't care about privacy.

You have no right to privacy in public - just as you have no right to complain about people looking through your front window when you leave the blinds open.

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[5KVGhost]

Of course you can. Why not?

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[davidphogan74]

You should really read what you linked to.

Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.

You also may want to review this USA Todayarticle, which goes into a bit more detail.

Finally, you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose â" using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK.

That's the part I think you thought you were talking about. You can sell make a profit from pictures with someone in them, you can't make it appear (as I learned in journalism classes in college) they're endorsing a product, or put them in a false light, or take pictures when there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Legally speaking, walking down the road while someone takes a picture of a tourist destination (for example) gives you absolutely no recourse. They can make as much money from selling that image as they want, so long as they don't try to imply something that did not happen did.

The whole purpose of news is to get eyes to look at the ads they show for about 8 to 10 minutes per half hour. Why should newsworthiness make a difference if any for-profit photography was banned? Are news agencies non-profits now?

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[NeoSkandranon]

Fair enough, thanks for the reference, it does appear fairly complicated.

Re:That would just be silly and expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Some information

[Anonymous Coward]

Some background on the law in the USA.

US law defines areas of private property in two different ways. There are true "private" areas, such as the inside of your home, and semi-public areas, called "curtilage." There's a sliding range of protection in each category, but we'll save that for another time.

Curtilage is your driveway, sidewalks leading up to your door, the treelawn, and possibly other areas immediately surrounding your house. Curtilage is basically any area where is is reasonable or expected for other people to enter. The reason there is a sidewalk leading to your front door is because you expect to use that door and you want people to use that path, instead of tramping across your lawn.

You can curb the expected curtilage rights to varying degrees by posting "Do Not Enter" signs, fencing in your yard, gating your driveway, etc. Otherwise the default is "anyone can enter," for reasonable/expected use.

Interestingly, anything the Police can observe inside the private areas of your property from the curtilage is fair game, in terms of not needing a warrant to enter. I.e., the police come to your front door and see [what reasonably appears to be] a kilo of cocaine, they can enter your house [at least as far as the room with the cocaine.]

Furthermore, at that point many jurisdictions would allow a brief search of the house in the name of officer safety too, to make sure there aren't any folks with weapons lurking. And anything illegal that is in plain sight can be seized. More than that, they do need a warrant, but it's a slippery slope. The moral is to hide your bad stuff in the first place.

I wandered a little off topic, but it calls for interesting analogies in the digital realm. What information that you send/receive is "private" and why/why not.

Re:Some information

[DrScotsman]

... sidewalks leading up to your door...

Off topic: I have no problem with the American word sidewalk, in fact I think it's quite intuitive. But do you really call things sidewalks that aren't actually...sidewalks?

Re:Some information

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You can curb the expected curtilage rights to varying degrees by posting "Do Not Enter" signs, fencing in your yard, gating your driveway, etc. Otherwise the default is "anyone can enter," for reasonable/expected use.

Indeed, and that's probably a reasonable default. The thing is, I imagine most people would expect and consider it reasonable for, say, the postman to walk up their drive to deliver the mail. (I appreciate that in some places, you have a separate mailbox at the roadside anyway, but not everywhere does.) I don't think most people would expect or consider it reasonable for a commercial organisation to drive a spy van up to their backyard, film the area where their children play, and then put it on the Internet in a searchable form. It's disturbing how many people in these discussions don't seem to see any difference between those two activities.

Re:Some information

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare say some people do, abstracting from the whole "paved walkway by the side of the road is a sidewalk" to "all paved walkways are sidewalks", but no, not everyone does.

Re:Some information

[NeoSkandranon]

It's likely a regional thing; here in the middle-south you're more likely to hear "walkway" or "front walk" to describe a paved path like that.

Re:Some information

[T-Bone-T]

Sidewalks often run along the SIDE of houses, often with a garden between the sidewalk and the house. This isn't really any different from grass being between the sidewalk and the street.

What is left out of the summary

[UnknowingFool]

is that the couple requested Google remove photos of the home which Google complied. Yet the couple still claimed "damages"

Staged?

[TheLink]

Was that staged?

It seems as if that short bit of Charlick Way and Sampsonia Street was taken at a different time of the day from the other streets.

Go down federal street and you'll see it's sunny with clear skies (and no battle) till it passes Sampsonia Street, then it becomes wet and cloudy (with the battle) then in the next shot it's back to sunny (and not battle) again. Similarly for Charlick Way.

Maybe they somehow missed that bit in an earlier pass and came back later when coincidentally a battle started just as they passed... :)

Re:Staged?

[JoelisHere]

Yes http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/1033204

Re:Staged?

[swillden]

That's awesome! I love it.

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has executives' homes on Google Street View, the Google Server farms and the entire Google Plex. They are openness luminaries and I commend them for taking the bold initiative of putting themselves out on the front lines.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I can see why

[Anonymous Coward]

One look at their house and you can see why you wouldn't want to show the world. But being a whiny little troll and suing only to have the international media bring all eyes to your poorly kept property is hilarious. And what is with the number of garages?

Re:I can see why

[stewbacca]

And what is with the number of garages?

When you have to destroy your methlab, it's easier to destroy a few temporary garages than it is to tear down your whole house.

Thou Shall Not Kill Saith the Lord

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd innit. One of the top ten. Don't see "Walking on my land" in the top ten.

Maybe it's in the unexpurgated Bible. The one with the Gannet.

No key yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the United States. When I was growing up (I'm in my 40s) we did not lock our house. And to this day not only don't I lock my door, but couldn't tell you where there's a key to my house (or even if we have one). And I owned cars for 20 years before I realized car keys could be removed. My entire key ring consists of one office key and nothing else.

I've never been robbed, but I'd like to think that the savings in "key hunting" time and frustration over the course of my entire life has long since paid for everything in my house. So if we lost it all now, I'd still be ahead in the deal.

Are you saying it's not like that where you live? Well, not to put too fine a point on it: you live in a lousy place.

sensible judge

[arekusu_ou]

Glad the judge in this case didn't reward the frivolous lawsuit.

Just another example of greedy people trying to make a quick million without earning it.

Google isn't selling said photos.

[falconwolf]

Google is selling eyeballs, the photos are lures for those eyeballs.

Falcon

Re:roadkill - none of these people have their SAG

[Anonymous Coward]

none of these people have their SAG cards on file damnit gumby - get those releases!!

Privacy

[KGF2009]

While I think Google Maps Street View is a nice way to view a neighborhood, I think it also opens up some people for attack, making it all that much easier to find their house, and the neighbor's houses too; so I think there could be a charge against Google.

photographing in public

[falconwolf]

Fair enough, thanks for the reference, it does appear fairly complicated.

It is complicated, just one change can affect the legality of taking photos in public. So far I have only shot photos for myself, but even then when I'm out taking photos and someone is going to be identifiable I always ask them if I can take their photo. If they say no I'll look for something or someone else to shoot. Something I'll been thinking about though is to get one of those portable photo printers when I get a DSRL, I still use a 35mm film camera. That way I could offer to make a print of a photo for those I take photos of.

Falcon

You should really read what you linked to.

[falconwolf]

Perhaps you should have read my other posts on the subject. There is no one answer to everything. Under one set of circumstances something can be legal but change one thing and it becomes illegal. And what's legal in one place is illegal in another, even in the US.

Falcon