Slashdot Mirror
Google Loses Street View Suit, Forced To Pay $1
Translation Error writes "Two and a half years ago, the Borings sued Google for invading their privacy by driving onto their private driveway and taking pictures of their house to display on Google Street View. Now, the case has finally come to a close with the judge ruling in favor of the Borings and awarding them the princely sum of $1. While the judge found the Borings to be in the right, she awarded them only nominal damages, as the fact that they had already made images of their home available on a real estate site and didn't bother to seal the lawsuit to minimize publicity indicated the Borings neither valued their privacy nor had it been affected in any great way by Google's actions."
How Boring...
Who paid the legal fees?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Will Google be allowed to make installment payments on that?
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
That's pretty much the judicial equivalent of saying "STFU!", isn't it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
But since American law operates as much upon precedent as statute, this has significance.
Google (and others) now know it's not okay to come on to private property for photogathering without permission, and can't play dumb next time. Google wasn't trespassing "innocently" or "by mistake"; they were engaged in commercial activity and did what they did intentionally. The judge in the decision also laid out the circumstances under which the trespass would have higher costs. If Google does this to someone who DOES value their privacy, the cost would be higher, and if Google is caught doing this repeatedly then they are sooner or later going to run into a "You don't learn, do ya, boy?" judge. Remember also that trespassing is a criminal charge, and in many places the property owner could call the police or even make a citizen's arrest on the van with the funny thing on top.
I'd be interested in seeing how Google would react if someone drove into their parking lot, hauled out a camera and started photographing their campus, their employees and their employees' cars, then claimed they weren't doing anything that Google wasn't themselves doing. I'm going to guess the answer would involve the Mountain View police and potentially DHS, (given that it's a high-value economic target to anti-capitalists).
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Undoubtedly the serious revenue damages would have exceeded five hundred billion dollars a week. Oh, and legal precedence means the G might not get off so slippery next time.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Google has invaded my privacy. I demand a free candy bar to cover emotional damages.
So they have to pay a dollar...I wonder how much it cost in legal and a check fee for that...not that Google would care...
So let's see, what's the worst way to deliver that $1? Pennies? A moist dollar? An out of state check/money order so it has a week hold on it?
Ave Molech Setting
Really?
Even though the details are pretty brief, it sounds like a good ruling.
I think far too many people think that just because somebody wrongs you, you should be entitled to millions of dollars when you sue them even though what they did isn't all that damaging. Considering they could prove no ill effect to the Google car coming on to their property, they had no right to the $25,000 they claimed.
I could see this as being an issue if one of the members of the house was in the witness protection program and had to be relocated because of the image or something similar to that, but there was no real damage here. Highly publicized rulings like this really help in the fight against frivolous lawsuits by putting those types of people back in check. Courts aren't designed to make someone unfairly rich, they're designed to recoup actual damages and that's it.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Er, she.
I'm intrigued by the court's treatment of the privacy issues, though. In particular, we occasionally see stories around here where trespass law--and sometimes copyright law--is used to shut down and even jail photographers taking pictures in public places... but here we have the opposite, photography taking place in a private (if not entirely "private") space and the response is nominative damages against a wealthy corporation. It's a frustrating disconnect.
While I agree that both of those factors should be considered, IMHO (and I believe in the court's opinion too) the intent of the photographs is the determining factor.
In many cases where courts have ruled against invasion of privacy in public places, the intent of the photographs was generally deformation of character to extortion and blackmail. When looking at the Google case, the pictures taken were not aimed to directly or even indirectly attack the Plaintiff, but instead was part of an automatic car system which either took a wrong turn or was mapped improperly.
While it's an interesting contrast, it makes sense in light of all factors.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Nothing really to see there...I have been to their cookie-cutter house and man, are they Boring!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I would think that if I, chose, to photograph my home. I would also get to chose what is visible in the yard, through the windows, in the drive, etc. I can chose to share photos I chose to take, any way I want. I took them, they are how I want my property presented, they don't invade my privacy. Having Google driving onto my property and take photos is completely different, and the judge seems to agree. I would have awarded them more than $1. They need to find something they authored in the street view photos, and then sue Google for copyright infringement for each use of the image. I hear that copyright infringement can get tens of thousands of dollars per shared item.
It was a Boring picture anyway.
Why are the Slashdot editors posting Boring stories on the front page?
What's so Boring about privacy?
"Everybody called me Mr. Boring, but now I'm famous!"
This is a more Boring version of the Streisand Effect.
Google is Boring its way into our privacy. (Didn't see that one coming, didya?)
Making up these bad wordplays is Boring the hell out of me. ...are we done?
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Here's the ruling translated into a quick note from the judge to the plaintiffs:
"Dear Mr. and Mrs Boring:
You are right. They did invade your privacy. However, you rub me the wrong way by not taking greater measures to protect your privacy so I'm only awarding you $1.00. Hope you enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.
The Judge"
All your privacy is belong to people, and nothing Google says will change that basic fact in the Canadian Constitution.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'm intrigued by the court's treatment of the privacy issues, though. In particular, we occasionally see stories around here where trespass law--and sometimes copyright law--is used to shut down and even jail photographers taking pictures in public places... but here we have the opposite, photography taking place in a private (if not entirely "private") space and the response is nominative damages against a wealthy corporation. It's a frustrating disconnect.
But are the photographers typically fined? The decision seems entirely reasonable to me - the damages should be related to how much the plantiffs privacy was actually violated. But then, IANAL. Are you suggesting that punitive damages should have been awarded?
You could have at least thrown in a coupon for Bennigan's! Make them feel like they won something!
Had the shoe been on the other foot and the Borings had trespassed against Google... the court probably would have award the corporation $8M while the people (whom the law is SUPPOSED to protect) get $1. Disgusting.
Unless there is a huge fence, and they had to drive past it to take the photo, then there is no significant difference between taking the photo from their driveway and taking it from the street. I suspect the Judge was able to form this conclusion on her own, so I highly doubt that your conclusion that "the judge seems to agree" is anything more than magical thinking on your part. It would be conjecture to claim I knew what she was thinking, but "meh ... give em' a dollar to send a message that such ridiculous suits will not be financially beneficial to future would be Borings" seems more likely to me.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I guess one could say that this case had
*puts on shades*
a Boring outcome
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
What's frustrating is the stupidity of the judge
and your stupidity and strawman arguments
What people need to understand is that the following is not equal in terms of relative power and ability to expose information:
A) A family across the street taking a vacation photo with distant relatives that includes your house in the background.
B) A real estate agent exposing pictures, for the purpose of a sale, on a website that might never be seen and the pictures would be removed once the house was sold.
C) Fucking Google who will provide an insanely well branded and understood portal to anyone seeking that information with a level of ease that would be considered indistinguishable from magic 500 years ago.
You're kidding right? the real estate site will get more people seeing there house than google unless/until you make a big deal of this suit and make everyone go look at it!!!
the pictures on google didn;t hurt anyone at all - if they had just simply request the removal google would have complied. instead they tried to get rich quick and it backfired.
Great! Now if everybody on Earth sues 'em for a dollar, we can bring 'em to their knees!
Wikileaks Is Democracy
Why does this sound like some straight out of the movie Trading Places?
...1 dollar"
"Here you go...
The world is how you make it
I'll buy THAT for a dollar.
What's frustrating is the stupidity of the judge. Quite frankly, a portion of Slashdot as well.
[...] Well first off, not everybody would instantly assume that putting their home up for sale would result in pictures being on a website, [...]
[...]A real estate agent exposing pictures, for the purpose of a sale, on a website that might never be seen and the pictures would be removed once the house was sold.[...]
You say those things and then have the arrogance to call the judge, as well as a portion of Slashdot, stupid? No, of course not everyone would assume that putting their home up for sale would result in pictures on a website... that's because it's not automatic. If your realtor does that without your express permission, that realtor is asking for a lawsuit of their own. If pictures of their house were on a real estate website, it's not because the owners didn't know about them, it's because they said "heck yeah, let's put some pictures with the online listing!".
Furthermore, in my experience, the pictures are not removed once the house is sold. Why do you assume (and state authoritatively) that they would be? For example, take a look at this listing. There's a picture, and if you scroll down to the red-highlighted stuff at the bottom, you'll see the selling price, as well as the closing date... oh look, the date's in 1998, over 10 years ago! And yet the picture is still on the real estate website!
Well, at least you were right about a portion of Slashdot being stupid... methinks you weren't looking at the right part though...
I guess there just wasn't anything interesting to see at the Boring place.
It's a frustrating disconnect.
Not really. As was noted in the article, the Borings had plastered information similar to that which Google collected all over the internet themselves, including pictures and its address. They clearly weren't concerned about their own privacy, they were just looking for a payday.
It's like telling all your neighbors they can use your driveway to turn around in, and then suing a stranger for turning around in your driveway. Obviously you don't really care if someone turns around in your driveway, so if you sue you'd certainly win, but you would almost certainly only win a dollar.
Frankly, as others have said, I hope the lawyer was working on contingency. He should have known better than to pursue this.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
IANAL, but isn't there usually a big disconnect between civil and criminal courts?
When Google appeals this case. If they should choose to do so
but here we have the opposite, photography taking place in a private (if not entirely "private") space and the response is nominative damages against a wealthy corporation. It's a frustrating disconnect.
I thought Google did not drive onto their private road to take photos but rather took photos of the private road from the public road.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Giant corp violate the law against individual, individual already posted picture elsewhere for free, judge awards nominal $1 to individual.
Individual violate the law against giant corp, giant corp already broadcasted music over radio for free, judge awards statutory $750 per song to giant corp.
WTF?!
Seriously, privacy laws should state a minimum statutory damage per violation, for the same reason statutory damages is specified in copyright laws - difficult to quantify damage.
Oliver.
What's frustrating is the stupidity of the judge. Quite frankly, a portion of Slashdot as well.
Unless you happen to be an expert in the area of Trespass law, I think the judge probably knows a lot more than you.
The judge established that they don't value their privacy because they had pictures of their home up on a real estate website and they did not move to seal the case.
The judge was merely pointing out an inconsistency in the Borings' behavior and assertions. Google was had posted almost the exact same views as was in their real estate ads.
Well first off, not everybody would instantly assume that putting their home up for sale would result in pictures being on a website, and secondly, they may have not even understood what sealing the case meant.
What? Have you sold a home recently? Every realtor who doesn't have a web site is behind the times. Let's for the sake of argument that the realtor didn't tell them that he/she was taking pictures for the website, that the Borings didn't read the agreement they signed with the realtor allowing them to publish pictures of the home on the internet, and the Borings didn't realize that pictures of the home were on the website. I'd have a hard time believing all that. The judge was pointing out if they Borings really valued their privacy they would have sealed the case. If their lawyer didn't know that, they should have hired a competent lawyer. If they represented themselves, then that's the problem of representing themselves; they don't know the law.
One thing that you don't point out that Google has a procedure to remove the pictures if the Borings wanted to keep their home out of the public view. The Borings sued before they asked Google to remove the pictures.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
When looking at the Google case, the pictures taken were not aimed to directly or even indirectly attack the Plaintiff, but instead was part of an automatic car system which either took a wrong turn or was mapped improperly.
Now that the case is over and they have some free time, Google's lawyers can divide up into two teams, and the side representing Google StreetView can sue the side representing Google Maps, to recover their damages in this case.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
You are assuming these people really did know that there pictures would be up on the Internet for everybody to see and that the Realtor obtained informed consent.
Furthermore, in my experience, the pictures ARE removed once the house is sold. I don't assume it either. I have created and managed several websites that are integrated with MLS and when the listing is removed the link to the pictures no longer works. Congratulations, you found one website for a MLS that is not removing stale records, which they are actually supposed to be doing. So your experience obviously differs from mine, but my experience does come from actually working with the MLS and various real estate firms and their websites.
AND FURTHERMORE....
Do you bring this up to support the notion that these people gave up all rights to privacy, forever, and categorically, simply because those photos were up on a real estate website?
Instead of being confrontational, try being productive. Argue that they lost their rights to privacy, or that Google deserves the same treatment as everyone else regardless of how much more power and influence they have with the information they gather.
Yes, a good portion of Slashdot is consistently stupid in that regard. Anytime there is an argument about privacy some poster will take all the entities involved and assume the same level of power, and that because your neighbor across the street can see your house, that Google should be able to "see" your house. It meets the very definition of stupid, and the fact that a judge is participating in said stupidity is frustrating.
I use stupid, not as a character assassination, but to reference their state of being. It is stupid.
At least the precedent is set that no, just because you're a big corporation, you cannot trespass and take photos of my property.
...and here was me thinking common sense was dead and buried.
PWNED!!!!
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
...of this one case I heard about. This guy's wife was sleeping around on him with another man. In his state the law still said that a man's wife was his property. So the guy sued the other man for damaging his "property". The judge awarded him $1.
If the Boring's had had the forethought to copyright their house they'd have control of all derivative works and a better standing to press for damages.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Actually, the driveway analogy is a bad one; it's quite different from the Borings' situation. I have several neighbors; I'm ok with them turning around in my driveway because I know them and trust them to, say, watch out for my kids in the process, because they know said kids exist. I don't thus trust the world.
As another example, people are commonly ok with their family members (including somewhat extended family, easily dozends of people) or close friends doing things that are completely not ok for random strangers to do. Like, say, using their hidden emergency key to get in the house as needed.
... when phrased as "equal to the CEO's salary".
had enough of Boring stuff for today - this one cheered me up :)
-ram
Not really. As was noted in the article, the Borings had plastered information similar to that which Google collected all over the internet themselves, including pictures and its address. They clearly weren't concerned about their own privacy, they were just looking for a payday.
OK, let's keep the internet out of it, since mention of the internet does not turn everything into something extraordinary.
In order to sell a house, you must, at a minimum, allow people to come into the house to see what they're buying. Does this mean you've therefore given up your right to privacy, at least with regard to the potential buyers? Can they surreptitiously snap pictures of the house and run off copies for everyone in town? Or in the state? Can they then return and take more pictures of you using your toilet or shower, which they've previously photographed? After all, you let them see the shower earlier.
What the hell, I'm sure Google has published photos of their CEO's office. Why can't I wander in and take a few of my own, since they obviously take no stock in their own privacy?
Erm you do know most real estate agents will charge extra for online listings right?
Loser pays means poor people can't afford to sue rich people, because they won't be able to afford an expensive lawyer like the rich person can (so they're less likely to win) and the if they lose the risk is a lot higher for them. It's not a big deal for Google to pay for Boring's lawyer, but the other way around is a big deal. It would create a strong disincentive for little people to sue mega-corporations, even when the mega-corporation was clearly in the wrong, and it wouldn't cut down on senseless lawsuits by wealthy people/corporations because they could afford to pay for the other sides lawyer. Forcing the side with more income/assets to pay for the other sides lawyer, if they initiated the case and lost, makes sense.
Any sane "loser-pays" system will give full discretion to the judge on whether to apply loser pays. The country where I'm from, the judge has full discretion to apply loser-pay, depending on the merits of the case. There are many cases where each side pays their own fee, usually when the winning side is not faultless or if it is a very close case. Meritless lawsuits or defense will usually end up with loser-pays.
The point is that you accept a certain loss of privacy in order to sell a house - that's a necessary evil even if you value your privacy. The breach of privacy Google were responsible for was less than this, and could have been resolved easily by the Borings asking for their property to be removed from Street View. That's exactly why the judge found in their favour for a technical breach but considered there was no real damage done.
Just about every other country in the world has some form of loser pays system. Just about every other country in the world has a system that still gives reasonable ability of poor people to sue rich people.
The flipside is that in the US, poor people can't afford to sue because the big company can just spend a lot of money wasting the time and money of the other side.
Loser pays means poor people can't afford to sue rich people, because they won't be able to afford an expensive lawyer like the rich person can (so they're less likely to win) and the if they lose the risk is a lot higher for them. It's not a big deal for Google to pay for Boring's lawyer, but the other way around is a big deal. It would create a strong disincentive for little people to sue mega-corporations, even when the mega-corporation was clearly in the wrong, and it wouldn't cut down on senseless lawsuits by wealthy people/corporations because they could afford to pay for the other sides lawyer. Forcing the side with more income/assets to pay for the other sides lawyer, if they initiated the case and lost, makes sense.
Your logic makes perfect sense if you are arguung FOR loser pays. How could a poor person possibly sue anyone with money when that person can tie up the legal process with appeals until the plaintiff runs out of money and is forced to drop the suit? If he knew he was right, it wouldn't cost him anything to sue.
The possibility of a rich person buying a verdict with better lawyers is there regardless of who pays.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
In slashdot style:
this + this
I can see street view pictures of some family's driveway, but not of many longtime streets around Denver. Thanks, googles.
So what you're saying is that if you sell your house (with a modern estate agent) then you have forever given up all rights of privacy?
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
I wouldn't say most. It's entirely illogical. More exposure gets a better selling price. The only thing they care about is getting the best selling price. They have no incentive to withhold anything to special charges.
One thing that you don't point out that Google has a procedure to remove the pictures if the Borings wanted to keep their home out of the public view. The Borings sued before they asked Google to remove the pictures.
That doesn’t keep their home out of the public view. It removes it from the public view... well, sort of... unless, of course, anyone took screen-shots from Google’s street view before they took down the images.
There is a procedure to keep your house out of the public view, though. It’s called, if your driveway looks like a road, put up a sign to indicate that it is private property, not a public easement. Which they supposedly did. Which Google apparently ignored. Which is why they sued.
You can rarely get something back off the internet once it gets on.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
No, of course not everyone would assume that putting their home up for sale would result in pictures on a website... that's because it's not automatic.
Cabinet-level Secretaries (e.g. Chertoff) taking high-paying jobs with companies they were previously responsible for enforcing regulations upon or purchasing from isn't "automatic" either, but both situations happen often enough that they are understood to be "routine".
I know a couple who seriously care about their privacy to the extent that when they sold their house they prohibited their real estate agent from even listing the house or bringing prospective buyers inside the house. The agent was allowed to place a sign in the front yard with text and sketch-only brochures and to walk prospective buyers around the yard. (it still sold in less than a month)
If Google had pulled this on them, the judge would have had a *lot* harder time concocting rationalizations for not punishing Google.
OK, let's keep the internet out of it, since mention of the internet does not turn everything into something extraordinary.
Then there's no case. Problem solved.
Normally yes, but this was in a private driveway (that Googlers probably didn't realize when they went down it).
You are assuming these people really did know that there pictures would be up on the Internet for everybody to see and that the Realtor obtained informed consent.
If they didn't consent, then why aren't they suing the realtor?
Do you bring this up to support the notion that these people gave up all rights to privacy, forever, and categorically, simply because those photos were up on a real estate website?
No, I brought it up to call you out for being confrontational in calling the judge stupid, while assuming things yourself which could in fact be entirely untrue. You are assuming that the homeowners did not provide informed consent, and/or that if they did the judge did not bother to determine whether they had provided informed consent. You then formed an opinion about the judge based on that. I am constantly amazed by how often people assume that judges, scientists, etc don't take into account various considerations, and then base their opinions on that assumption (which then becomes a rather circular, self-reinforcing opinion). If you have evidence (say, from the article, or the judge's words) that the judge did not bother to find this out, please point me to them and I will apologize for my mischaracterization of how you went about forming your argument.
Instead of being confrontational, try being productive.
[...]
I use stupid, not as a character assassination, but to reference their state of being. It is stupid.
To be as generous as possible, your post would have been at least as productive, and definitely less confrontational, had you simply omitted the part about stupidity. You claim it wasn't character assassination, but simply an objective description of how things are. In reality though, it wasn't a fact, it was an opinion; the fact that you can't see it as an opinion illustrates further your confrontational arrogance which led to you calling the judge stupid. And yet when I did the same thing to you (pointed out some things you may not have known and/or may have gotten wrong in an aggressive, confrontational way), suddenly you could very easily see that I was being confrontational rather than productive. I admit that freely, as it was intentional; nothing provokes me to being confrontational like someone who is being confrontational/arrogant/insulting without provocation -- it makes me want to give them a taste of their own medicine. You, on the other hand, can't seem to see that it was a taste of your own medicine. For a final ironic stroke, please allow me to call that a stupid way of being.
For once, a judge that seems to be able to combine sound legal reasoning and good ol' common sense.
yes, that is exactly what he is saying. oh, also, he is saying that the queen of france is in his underpants.
wait, what?
no, you are just a fucking idiot or a contrarian asshole, with a terrible straw man.
you can't put pictures of your house online, but then scream "privacy!!" when google posts essentially the same pictures. clearly you have already indicated that you are fine with the house being on the internet. furthermore, you CERTAINLY can't claim you actually want the pictures removed, if you never contact google in the first place to ask them to remove the pictures.
it is painfully obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that this was just a greedy couple trying to get rich quick, who had no actual concerns over the fact that google had images of their house. the judge rightfully called them out on it.
All that and you don't even know me ;-)
Why yes I can post pictures on the internet that are taken on private premises where there is an expectation of privacy and then bitch when someone else who has no right to be on that property does similar.
Okay to take an example at the far end. I post some pictures from a particularly wild party on the internet. Someone else trespasses on the party and takes some pictures that maybe are similar maybe they're not, it doesn't matter. They had no right to be there or to take those photos so they should have no right to publish them and doing so would be an invasion of privacy.
Can we at least agree on that?
After that it's a matter of degrees of how similar the photos are which a court of law might find that in this case it's so similar it's as good as no difference, but to simply state that you have published photos of this house on the internet therefore you have no right to privacy to photos of that house is lunacy.
I'm happy that as always half the point of a court of law is the question of where do you draw the line. Take another example, If I publish photos of me on the internet then why should I care if someone else does so? Why am I different from a house in this respect? Actually it turns out I'm not if you take a photo of me while you are in a public place then there's nothing I can do about it. It's only on private property that you normally have a leg to stand on. So why the difference here?
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
i can certainly agree with your example of pictures from a party, but that was obviously cherry-picked to prove a point. in this particular case, the images were trivially different from pictures that could have been taken from public property. the judge examined the situation and made a rational judgement based on the evidence.
my first reply might have been a bit snarky. but your straw man was just begging for a bit of lighter fluid and a match :-)