Slashdot Mirror


Woman Sues Google Over Street View Shots of Her Underwear

Kittenman writes "The Telegraph (and several US locals) are covering a story about a Japanese woman who had her underwear on the line while the Google car went past. She is now suing Google: 'I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime,' the woman told a district court. 'It caused me to lose my job and I had to change my residence.'"

54 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. Common sense says... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... don't leave them in public view to begin with?

    1. Re:Common sense says... by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Common sense says taking a picture from a publically accessable location is fair game. After that the rest of your argument falls apart.

    2. Re:Common sense says... by MadAhab · · Score: 4, Informative

      Common sense is different in different cultures.

      In some places, common sense says you don't eat corn - it's for the animals stupid! How dare you serve it to me.

      In Japan, where streets are small and houses close, people are very used to not looking and not seeing things plainly visible from the street. It would be really rude to stare, and it isn't done.

      So yes, she does have a reasonable expectation of a kind of privacy that is expected in Japan, and which was violated by Google.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    3. Re:Common sense says... by clone52431 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Japan, where streets are small and houses close, people are very used to not looking and not seeing things plainly visible from the street. It would be really rude to stare, and it isn't done.

      If the fact that it’s airing up there visible for the world to see doesn’t mean that anybody should be staring at it, neither does the fact that it’s visible on Google Street View.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    4. Re:Common sense says... by jcoy42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not always; consider the red light district in Amsterdam. Photographs are strictly prohibited and you'd find yourself in a good deal of trouble.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    5. Re:Common sense says... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if we accept that point of view (and I'm really not sure that I agree), the next step is to examine the reasoning she gave to the court: "I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime". That makes no fucking sense. None whatsoever. She thinks that if someone sees a picture of bra on a washing line (which they could've seen while walking down the street), they're going to find and assault her?

      The only way that it makes any sense is in the context (as given by the article) of her mental illness: "The suit claims her existing obsessive-compulsive disorder was worsened by the anxiety brought on by the photo, as she feared that everything she was doing throughout the day was being secretly recorded.". Taking that into account, I do sympathise with her problems, but Google can't reasonably be held responsible for them.

    6. Re:Common sense says... by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      we'll talk again next time you get playful with your significant other in a secluded, but public, spot. or in your living room without the drapes drawn.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    7. Re:Common sense says... by SomeJoel · · Score: 2

      it wasn't visible to "the world to see", it was visible to neighbours and people walking by

      And what was preventing anyone in the world from walking/driving by and seeing it?

      Physical access. Most people in the U.S., for example, will never have the opportunity to walk by and see it. But, they certainly can view it on the internet.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    8. Re:Common sense says... by clone52431 · · Score: 2

      Most people in the U.S., for example, will never have the opportunity to walk by and see it.

      They could if they wanted to, which is the whole point.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    9. Re:Common sense says... by arivanov · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is Slashdot, remember?

      What exactly do you think will be the problem if a slashdotter will get playful with his computer?

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    10. Re:Common sense says... by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Japan is where there are huge problems with men groping teenage girls on the train, to the point where there are "women only" cars now. And you're telling us that nobody in Japan would dare look at this woman's panties drying on a line?

    11. Re:Common sense says... by guru312 · · Score: 2

      Common sense says that if someone does not want to be seen, heard and read don't do any of it in a place viewable by the public. There is no expectation of privacy in public space in the US. I don't know Japanese laws. I made the mistake of photographing and video taping signs--from public space--erected by a woman who had a story to tell. I had five different criminal harassment charges place against me. It took lots of money and 15 months to have the charges dismissed. If you want to see: http://berniesayers.com/OracleOfFortescue.htm

    12. Re:Common sense says... by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 2

      That makes no fucking sense. None whatsoever.

      Agreed. Looks like opportunism to me.

    13. Re:Common sense says... by Eevee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except they may not have been in public view to begin with. The Google car-mounted camera system is around 2.5 meters high...higher than a pedestrian or driver of a normal vehicle, so it's entirely possible that the location is not normally viewable from the street.

    14. Re:Common sense says... by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With advanced technology from Asia, Choocle (a fictitious Chinese Google) could drive machines around that could see through the walls of our homes. That might be perfectly acceptable in their culture and 'legal' here (as soon as they 'donate' to the right politicians). I'm sure we'd get use to it, too, just like the TSA 'inspections'. We should also get use to eating dogs.

    15. Re:Common sense says... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      In either case I have consented to be photographed, videotaped, or whatever, because I own blinds and I have control over where I have sex.

      I do think that it's a bit rude that only people with homes are entitled to privacy. There's all kinds of problems with requiring that things happen in the home. It's illegal for you to have sex in public if someone might see you, most places.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Common sense says... by Schadrach · · Score: 2

      You mean like "visible from publicly accessible locations to the naked eye, with no attempt made to shield said location from the public view"? That seems like a perfectly fair mark to me -- if you don't want someone to look at or photograph something in your yard in clear view, then put up a fence (or draw your blinds/curtains, or what have you) so it's no longer in clear view?

    17. Re:Common sense says... by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not a corner case. Many localities have differing regulations concerning photography. You think all laws are sensible? FFS, there are places where there are still laws on the books prohibiting you from putting squirrels in your pants for the purposes of betting. If you think the law is about "common sense" you may be in for a rude shock when you travel.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    18. Re:Common sense says... by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hate it when people try to talk to me while I'm fucking my girlfriend. If you can see that I'm busy STFU and wait until I'm finished asshole!

      Seriously people, what's an extra ten seconds to you anyway?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    19. Re:Common sense says... by Sanat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seeing those undies hanging there brings a whole new meaning to the word "on-line".

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    20. Re:Common sense says... by spun · · Score: 2

      I'm still missing it. "Oh wait" could mean anything.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    21. Re:Common sense says... by spazdor · · Score: 2

      And come to think of it, is any establishment required by law to give you a place to pee?

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    22. Re:Common sense says... by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google can't reasonably be held responsible for them.

      Most countries follow the "eggshell skull" rule. This rule states that a plaintiff in a tort is liable for the harm as it happened, not as they intended. The titular example is the person who shoves a fellow bar patron up against a wall, which due to his thin or "egghshell" skull (A medical condition) kills him. He is civilly responsible for that death, even though a minor shove up against a wall should not be expected to cause any lasting harm, let alone death. Because he was wrong to do it, so he must take responsibility for absolutely anything that happens because of that wrong doing. Another example would be throwing a PBJ sandwich at somebody, and they end up being allergic to peanuts. You didn't know, you thought it would just splat on their face and teach them a lesson, not potentially kill them. However, it was not the victims fault for not alerting you in advance.

      So, in this case, Google CAN be held responsible for the aggravation of this woman's mental condition. But only if they are first found to have wrongfully the picture in the first place. The eggshell skull rule simply says that IF you commit a tort, you are responsible for all harm that results, regardless of how exceptional that harm end up being due to circumstances unknown to you at the time. However, without the tort, there is no case. So, if I say to a woman with a mental illness "Good day, ma'am" and this triggers some sort of episode, I am not legally responsible, because a friendly greeting is not a tort. (In most jurisdictions I hope)

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    23. Re:Common sense says... by Plekto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You *do* close the blinds before having sex, don't you?

      But the real issue is that people are too hung up over this in the U.S. If such an incident happened to most normal people in the rest of the world, they would simply take better precautions and move on with their life. Going into a panic over it to the point where you get paranoid and dysfunctional is the wrong way to handle the problem. Also, there would be less of an issue with stalkers and so on if the U.S. wasn't so anally obsessed with maintaining a pseudo-1950s ideal of purity about the human body. I mean, as it was pointed out a couple of days ago here, you can show someone's head being exploded in a PG movie but you show a little too much skin and you're looking at a R rating.

      ie - most of the rest of the industrialized world doesn't generally have to worry as much about such issues because sex and the body in media is far more accessible. So there's less of a psychological issue amongst the society because they can easily and simply get their porn or whatever as they need to. You'll note that the most sexually repressed societies are also amongst the most violent, especially in terms of assaults and rape.

      Of course, this is barely being touched upon in modern Psychology. The idea that high incidents of rape and physical assault are a result of societal issues and a dysfunctional environment between the sexes and people's views of themselves and their bodies.

      Some interesting reading:
      http://www.ipce.info/library_2/pdf/prescott_en.pdf (perhaps the first study of its kind, though largely ignored in the U.S. until recently)
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01068.x/abstract - This is extremely recent and a (long overdue) logical progression of the hypothesis, IMO.

      The book "An Interview with The Devil" also has a coupe of great passages in it about this. Though it's mostly tongue-in-cheek humor, there is a valid point to be made about how people who are less able to show affection and obtain closeness with others end up being more violent. You'll note that the U.S. is even worse off than ever before and we also at the same time can't even hug each other or touch each other in public/school/work/etc without fear of being charged with a crime.

      It would be interesting to do a study on sexual and physical repression in terms of the collapse of great empires throughout history. I suspect that the results might be quite interesting.

  2. Expectation of Privacy by Nailer235 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems hard to imagine that the woman expected her delicates to stay completely private when she hung them up for the entire world to see.

    1. Re:Expectation of Privacy by Rary · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems hard to imagine that the woman expected her delicates to stay completely private when she hung them up for the entire world to see.

      This is the part that really stands out. What makes you think she hung them up "for the entire world to see"? I mean, what we have today is kind of a whole new level in the public vs. private continuum. There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.

      There is a shift that needs to happen in how we view things. Obviously, the moment you step out of a private residence, you can no longer expect privacy. But perhaps there is a reasonable expectation of something that falls somewhere between "private" and "on the Internet".

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    2. Re:Expectation of Privacy by enderjsv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How would that even work? No. I think trying to somehow distinguish between regular public and internet public is kind of dumb. Here's a good rule of thumb. Live your public life as though everything you do will end up on the internet.

    3. Re:Expectation of Privacy by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.

      No, it isn't. "On the Internet" is where you should assume everything "public" will end up. Or put another way, you should always assune the whole world is watching anything you do in public. This was a good idea before the Internet, and it's a better idea now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Expectation of Privacy by clone52431 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.

      Not for long. Get used to it... I don’t see the trend changing.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    5. Re:Expectation of Privacy by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.

      Not really. If something is in public view, it could simply be photographed and published anywhere - without permission. That's the nature of "in public view". There's nothing inherently different about it being "on the internet" in these cases.

      The lesson is, to co-opt a phrase, that people shouldn't air their clean laundry in public. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Expectation of Privacy by Local+ID10T · · Score: 2

      There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.

      No. No it is not. This is the kind of thinking that our lawmakers are using "it is different if it involves a computer!" They are wrong, and so are you.

      Private is private, and public is public.

      That is not to say that there are not cultural differences... in small densely populated regions (like Japan) people have learned to ignore many "private" things that are going on right in front of them, because there is not enough space for it to be done in true privacy. But that is a cultural issue, and not a legal one.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    7. Re:Expectation of Privacy by clone52431 · · Score: 2

      It doesn’t “become” dangerous. It just becomes more easily available.

      It’s just the same old argument.

      Something is patentable? Okay. New patent doing the same thing but “with a computer”? No, not patentable. Not innovative. Not new. Just an extension of what already existed: making it easier and available to more people.

      Something is a crime? Okay. New crime for the same thing but “with a computer”? No, not a new crime. Just the existing crime, done with a computer: making it easier to commit.

      Something is publicly available? Okay. Making it available on the internet? Same thing. Not new. Not “becoming” dangerous. Just becoming more available.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    8. Re:Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this point of view seems to be in vogue on slashdot recently, as a backlash against privacy nuts, but no-one ever explains what they mean by public, so the argument falls flat. Is a conversation between two people at a cafe private? What about a husband and wife arguing in the cafe? Common decency would mean that most of us would take pains to ignore that argument, despite it being in public, because it would be considered an intrusion to appear to be listening. And yet the ridiculous /. definition of public is that anything that can be seen by anyone in the street is fair game to be plastered up online for all to see. "Private" is limited to what goes on strictly inside the four walls of your house. That also excludes windows of course, since if you choose to leave your curtains open, then clearly you don't mind people taking photos of you in your living room. And of course if you didn't want the world to see what was going on in your garden, then you should have planted a 30ft hedge.

      Until the day that one day google streetview cars add infrared cameras. Then there'll be an outcry. /. will be up in arms, until a few months down the line when that argument starts getting used by mainstream press, and the general /. consensus will shift towards "well, it's fair enough, after all, you ARE giving off that infrared radiation."

      Until we start to get some kind of a consensus on what the word public actually means, these arguments will never go anywhere, and they are very, very important arguments.

      this post will probably be buried as I don't have an account, but I needed to vent

      also, possibly dupe as /. doesn't like text browsers with no js

  3. Streisand Effect by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Congragulations, miss. The entire readership of /. will now see your underwear.

    Well done.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
    1. Re:Streisand Effect by pspahn · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's not us that bothers her. Those gnomes can be terrifying.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  4. So? by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    She wasn't wearing them at the time, so who cares?

    1. Re:So? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was never really meant as a meme but rather a quick way to convey your concurrence to a statement.

      Like the whole
      tl;dr = Too Long Didn't Read
      IANAL = I am not a Lawyer
      LoL = Laugh out Loud

      This = Indubitably my good sir! Your clever insight and concise conveyance of the subject matter at hand was quite enjoyable and I agree with your statement in every facet that one might be agreeable.

    2. Re:So? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have to add a bunch of text to get around the lameness filter, maybe you should reconsider posting your lame post.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  5. Ugh, this again? by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 2, Informative

    I understand not wanting pictures of your underwear online, but she didn't seem to have a problem hanging it in her front yard.

    In my eyes, any legitimacy she had was lost when she sued first instead of just asking to have it blurred or removed.

    1. Re:Ugh, this again? by darkstar949 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Might not have been the front yard. In Japan it's actually unusually to have a dryer so people will dry their clothing outside on a patio or balcony.

  6. Mental Illness by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime,' the woman told a district court. 'It caused me to lose my job and I had to change my residence.'

    Even ignoring the fact that the woman's underwear was apparently visible from the street in the first place and it never bothered her. This reeks of unhealthy paranoia to me, is Google really responsible for one woman's mental issues? Granted, this thinking is exactly what the modern media creates, the idea that the world is filled with kidnappers, rapists, and violence. It's ironic that there are fewer murders than ever in US history, the kidnapping rate is lower than it was in 1940, and the overall violent crime rate sets new record lows every year (maybe not since the recession, but I haven't heard).

  7. Other commenters are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know many people are saying that she should not have left them out to dry in public view. She made her mistake long before that.

    She is in Japan. She shouldn't have washed them in the first place; instead she could have sold them for a nice profit.

  8. "Target of a sex crime", seriously? by DontLickJesus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not aware of the laws outside the US, but that line is loaded. In the US, sexual harassment is the only crime that is judged by, not on the intention of the accused, but the perception of the accuser. There is the allowance for a measure of common sense when asking "would a reasonable, normal person be offended in this way" which is introduced, but no company is going through a sex crimes trial before settling. It just isn't happening. Can someone comment as to these laws in Japan?

    --
    Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
  9. More like overwhelmed with anxiety by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that she might miss out on a chance to sue a big company for a whole lot of money she doesn't deserve, by feigning distress. I'm sure nobody involved thinks it's anything other than BS, but they're probably hoping Google will settle.

  10. Ha! by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Funny

    That'll teach her to air her dirty laundry in public!

    (N.B. This joke would actually be funny if the laundry actually was dirty)

  11. Re:There is a difference between a yard and the we by Volante3192 · · Score: 2

    Hypothetical situation: Amateur photographer sees her underthings on the line, sees the framing, thinks it makes a good shot. Posts it online, wins some flickr award, gets lots of attention (remember, hypothetical!). The rest plays out as normal.

    Does she deserve more, less or the same amount of sympathy?

  12. Time to play Devil's Advocate by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So far, everyone seems to be concluding that this woman is some sort of nut and/or lawsuit-happy money-grabber. Honestly, I agree with that given the evidence shown so far, but everyone deserves some level of defense.

    This woman is making at least one claim that can be tested - that she lost her job due to this. It would be rather simple to find out if this was the case - ask her ex-boss if he fired her over them, find out if she was shunned by coworkers over the images, etc. Most cases of people suing over trivialities involve less testable claims. As such, either she's not good at trolling the legal system, or she's got more of a case than we've assumed. After all, Japan is a much different culture than America or Europe - something like this could actually be a big deal over there. I honestly don't know. So, I'm going to wait for more info before making any sort of final judgement.

  13. Re:Women of /., please comment by bwcbwc · · Score: 2

    Actually, it would have to be Japanese women. And for the record, I'm neither. But I do know that Japan has a tradition of "if it's behind the property gate, it's invisible, even if it's visible", simply as a matter of being able to live together in close quarters. So a polite Japanese neighbor would ignore the laundry on the line and not take snaps of it.

    But I still get the feeling that some Japanese are just as litigious as the worst in the US.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  14. Re:Women of /., please comment by kent_eh · · Score: 2

    I'll see your woman with OCD, and raise you a Delusional Disorder with Major Depression.

    Not intended as a sexist comment, simply a reflection of my current life.
    I know everyone is at risk of developing some mental illness at some point in their life, but the stats do show women being much more often affected than men (for Depression, 50% more likely in women than men).

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  15. www.upskirt.com by Sentrion · · Score: 2

    This is rediculous. Are all of the ladies who recognize themselves on upskirt.com going to sue them as well? Where do you draw the line?

    Sorry, my stance is this: If it's publicly viewable it's fair game. That's why I wear pants and dry my laundry in a clothes dryer.

  16. Re:There is a difference between a yard and the we by jfengel · · Score: 2

    the whole rest of the world, over whom you have no influence, social or direct.

    And that's just it: you have no influence, nor they over you. In a sense, your underwear is more private on Google Street View than it is on the street. The people who see the underwear on the street are your friends and neighbors. You'll interact with them after they've seen your underwear.

    The imagined voyeurs are on Google Street View might in fact be real people, but you don't know them and will never meet them. In fact, the odds are that they don't even exist; the world is a very, very big place and it's got no particular interest in your middle-of-nowhere.

    If she'd become the target of some sort of stalker, or if some juvenile web site put up a "look at the giant underwear, hur hur" page, she might have a case against them. And in doing so she might take a swipe at Google, which has deeper pockets, though her odds of success are pretty low. In taking a preemptive swipe against Google, though, and subjecting herself to the Streisand Effect, she looks either money-grubbing or obsessive. Neither of those is going to engender much sympathy.

  17. More Details. NOT a regular Streetview Photo... by kumanopuusan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Someone took a picture of her underwear and posted it on Google Streetview...

    Here's the original article.

    From the original article in the Mainichi Shinbun, "It seems that someone posted the picture of her underwear on the internet.[...] She said, "If it had been an exterior view of the apartment that's understandable, but that a photo of my underwear drying on the veranda should appear is strange no matter how you look at it."

    Again, this isn't just a case of something weird showing up on Streetview, according to the woman in question. Her paranoia is a little more understandable considering that she claims someone took a picture of her underwear and went to the trouble of posting it where she would likely find it. Being concerned about harassment or stalking isn't completely unreasonable.

    Some other details that were left out of the English article include that the woman in question is from Fukuoka City in Fukuoka, that she's in her twenties, that she was fired from the hospital were she was working, that she lived alone at the time of the incident, that she found the photo this Spring, that she filed suit in November in Fukuoka District Court and that opening arguments were heard on December 15th. As of December 15th, Google was hurrying to verify the facts of the case.

    There was a 2channel thread about the story that referred to it as "MyPantyView," but unfortunately Slashdot's Japanese counterparts had no comment on the matter.

    --
    Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  18. Re:There is a difference between a yard and the we by couchslug · · Score: 2

    "But there is a difference between the attention of your neighbors, with whom you have some kind of dynamic relationship, and the whole rest of the world, over whom you have no influence, social or direct."

    Most sex crimes are commited by people who know the victim.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  19. That's what laundry covers are for by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2

    In Japan you can buy even in 100 yen stores a very neat special covers for your laundry that you put over the hangers and voilá, women and girls can put they lingerie to dry in a balcony without worry about the prying eyes of the male neighbors. If this lady was truly worried about it she could have bought her laundry covers a long ago.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!