Slashdot Log In
Google Says Complete Privacy Does Not Exist
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Jul 31, 2008 06:57 AM
from the open-books dept.
from the open-books dept.
schliz writes "In a submission to court, Google is arguing that in the modern world there can be no expectation of privacy. Google is being sued by a Pennsylvania couple after their home appeared on Google's Street View pages. The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property." Here is our previous story about Google Street View privacy issues.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Google Caught On Private Property 668 comments
nathan halverson writes "Google recently launched Street View coverage in Sonoma and Mendocino counties — big pot growing counties. And while they hardly covered the area's biggest city, Santa Rosa, they canvassed many of the rural areas known for growing pot. I found at least one instance where they drove well onto private property, past a gate and no trespassing sign, and took photographs. I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking, but someone is likely to find some pot plants captured on Street View. That could cause big problems for residents. Because while growing a substantial amount of pot is legal in Mendocino and Sonoma County under state law, it's highly illegal under federal law and would be grounds for a federal raid."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Perhaps they should photograph around (Score:5, Insightful)
military installations, the CIA, the NSA, and other sensitive areas- just to see if there really is no privacy in the US.
Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4)
In the case of military, CIA, NSA, &tc. there are fences, gates, guards, dogs and suchlike preventing your access to what they don't want pictures of.
That said, if these people *really* cared about privacy, they could have put up a gate across the road to ensure no-one just wandered in.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. The only legal requirement is that Google not set foot on property if it is marked as private property. Google can photograph it from a public street, or any other public land. They can fly over it. They can take pictures from a satellite. They can set up shop in a building across the street (with permission) and go paparazzi to their heart's content.
They simply cannot step onto the private property without permission.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only legal requirement is that Google not set foot on property if it is marked as private property.
Is that even a legal requirement? A sign marked "private property" isn't the same thing as a sign saying "no trespassing" or "private property---no photographing from beyond this point". I've seen lots of mall parking lots that say "private property"; From what I understand, unless the sign is more specific, you can still show up and do pretty much anything you want until the owner (or his agent, e.g. a mall employee) asks you to leave.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Brings up an interesting point though... if I get a hot air balloon and go low-flying over the neighbourhood taking pictures of all the girls sunbathing topless in their own backyards I am not breaking any law, even if I put the pictures on the net, but if I peer over my wall and take the same picture from my OWN property - I would already be likely to get at least a peeping-tom charged leveled against me.
Despite the fact that the balloon can probably get me CLEARER pictures that show MORE detail and (for the subject mentioned at least) at a much better angle.
Makes ME think we should make it illegal to photograph private property even from above, only trouble is - if you DO that, the days of maps (especially streetmaps of urban areas) is over.
On the other hand, in most parts of the world at least, maps are made by the government and are in the public domain (South Africa is a notable exception which is why GPS-mapping devices took much longer to come to market here, the GPS companies had to license the maps from private companies) - it's easy enough to make an exception ONLY for official government business, and for those who do not want the CIA taking pix either, we can limit it further to "where the results will be placed in the public domain and made easily accessible to all via an established mechanism for doing so such as an archives office, webpage or library".
If you don't want the government to have special privileges, we could debate about only letting the second part stand (the requirement for public domain publishing of the results and derivative works). At least it would mean that Google earth's data would have to become public domain to be legal.
Can't see that flying with amount of power that intelligence agencies hold in modern governments though sadly.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Funny)
>> neighbourhood taking pictures of all the girls sunbathing topless in their own backyards
I'm sorry, which neighborhood was that again?
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Informative)
No.
I can point you specifically to 130 IAC 4-1-5 in the Indiana Code. The New York Port Authority has something similar that reaches farther. Maryland does. Ohio. I'd list other states but it has been a while since I traveled around the US for photography.
Here [boingboing.net] is picture of the signs you'll find around New York, courtesy of the Port Authority. I know from first hand experience that it is enforced.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Informative)
When I was flying it was 500 ft. AGL in non-populated areas (a lone ranch house in the country). It was 1000 ft. AGL over populated areas (cities/suburbs) or large gatherings of people.
I think air shows have specific waivers for the large gatherings of people -- and as we've seen in the past, it can be really bad when something goes wrong.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah well...when I was flying, we didn't have motors, or wings! We had to walk uphill, in the snow (important for the landing bit) to the edge of a cliff with nothing but a parachute, made of twine and burlap cloth, in case the feathers we were holding in our hands didnt work, AND WE LIKED IT.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Since most property comes with Air Rights up to a certain hight you can build (depending on the municipality), I would guess "no". Even if we leave aside the fact that a hovercraft is also referred to as a "Ground Effect" vehicle. :)
You'll notice that the Paparazzi favor helicopters for celebrity weddings because they can get better angles, and "closer" without being subject to trespass, so in this case at least "Hight Matters".
(As do telephoto lenses)
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
FAA regs state 500 ft separation in rural areas, 1000 ft in residential or urban areas. In Class G airspace you can fly as low as you like to the ground (if your are foolish), but cannot come with 500 ft of a structure. So if these folks lived in the country someone could fly over their property at 500 ft and take pictures to their hearts content.
Funny thing is, if they had just kept quiet this would be a non issue. How many people would be going onto google maps and looking at their specific spot on the planet. Now that they have raised a stink, people from all around the globe will consider visiting the famous "privacy" home. Their actions are like someone jumping up and down saying "Don't look at me, don;t look at me".
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes but if they succeed then Google will remove the offending images and we will only be able to see their house as it appears from the public street, which is the way things should be.
If Google had their van drive all the way up my drive, take pictures of my house and garden from it, and then post those pictures on a billion user api based internet map interface, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
Maybe a lot of Slashdotters are from suburbia, and don't fully understand what some rural houses are like. Some people build their house at some remove from the highway, with a _long_ drive connecting it to the public road. 50m+. They do this, ironically in this case, because they want some privacy and.or piece and quiet. This drive is theirs, and they have to pay themselves for keeping it graveled or tarmaced, at considerable cost. The difference in road surface is consequently immediately obvious. You know it's not a public highway.
Typically it won't have a gate where it meets the road, unless farmers are driving cattle down the road regularly. Some people would consider such a gate unwelcoming.(Yes, a desire for privacy does not rule out being amiable). But it is private property. I've seen this type of drive lined for tens of meters with magnificent arrays of trees or quite stunning blooms. Some can be slightly overgrown, with bushes bulging out at both sides. Since the public roads have their bushes trimmed, that's another distinguishing sign.
These are the rules where I come from. I'm sure various regions have their own. In short, anyone from a rural area knows when a road is someone's driveway, and when it is a public road. However, I'd suspect that to the young, single 00's suburbanites driving the google vans, one dirt track in the wilderness looks much the same as another. But that isn't really an excuse not to take down the photographs.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a principle you idiot. If everyone just accept that google invades their privacy, google will just continue.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
Streisand effect.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
With FedEx and UPS, there's an assumption of permission. You have a package to deliver to me, therefore they can walk up to my front door to deliver it. You cannot, however, walk around my property taking photos of my house or walk into my backyard. Tax appraisers work for the government and thus get a bit more leeway than your normal person. And utility workers can go on your property for purpose of servicing your (or someone else's) utility service. This is typically on the front portion of your front yard (which is technically not yours, but owned by the local government specifically for utility purposes). My house, however, has utility poles in my backyard and we've more than once seen utility workers walk down our driveway and behind our garage to get up the poles.
So, yes, there are exceptions, but that doesn't mean that Joe Random Individual can walk up my driveway to take photos of my backyard.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Needless to say an (english) sign "NO ENTRY", if clearly visible is sufficient. This means that ALSO the utility company and FedEx are forbidden.
For everyone who does not have "reasonable assumption of permission" (think "the neighbours called 911 and I'm a paramedic"), it is simply forbidden always. Private persons are only allowed to step on private property if (beforehand) invited to do so.
Above & below your property is state domain. In other words you need permission from the state to fly over your property and you need permission from the state to tunnel under it (assuming you take reasonable precautions to prevent collapse or otherwise damage the property, then again permission to fly over it does not equal permission to dump garbage on it from a plane).
In most other countries it's simply not clear. The only thing that's very clear about it, in most European countries, is that if someone decides to violate the law, nothing can be done about it (legally it's a mess, since you don't get to find out the identity of the guy trespassing, and physically you don't get to actually remove him).
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Informative)
.
According to local law, customs and traditions.
The Google logo on your cap isn't worth s--t when you intrude on a mosque in Mecca or Medina - or the property of a cattleman in Texas.
His double-barreled shotgun will teach you some manners.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell are blue and green circles saying "This Image Hosted By Tripod" going to keep the Google Street Team off my land?
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would go one step further. Here in California, we have hundreds of roads marked "Private road." If you don't allow anyone to drive on them. it would be crippling in many parts of the Santa Cruz mountains. You get used to routinely ignoring the signs when looking at homes and lots for sale because 90% of the time, they're on roads marked as "private", usually with an accompanying "No trespassing" sign. To a degree, by listing the property in MLS, the owner gave you implicit permission, I suppose, but still, it's rather silly to expect an ungated road to be treated as anything other than a public road. Heck, private roads without gates like that shouldn't even be allowed to exist. The county should be forced to take over repair and maintenance of every road in the county. Either that or everybody on that road should get a reduction in the property taxes that they pay to make up for the reduction in services.
The way I see it is this: you either have a private, gated community or you don't. If you don't, you have no real right to tell people they can't use the road as long as they aren't then trespassing into your yard. If we're talking about a driveway, that's completely different because it is not a shared resource (it only serves a single home), so the correct sign is "Private driveway. No Trespassing." Expecting people to not drive on a road merely because you didn't deed it over to the county is like expecting people not to walk from a public beach area onto the beach behind your house merely because you put a sign there. You're going from one similar area to another, and the area really shouldn't have any legal protection because it is a shared, semipublic resource.
Parent
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Perhaps they should photograph around (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Perhaps they should photograph around (Score:5, Funny)
It actually works the other way. The council I work for commissions the arial photography and sells it to google.
Mmmm, pictures of hot nude fonts...
Parent
more or less true, but . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:more or less true, but . . . (Score:5, Informative)
If there was no sign, then Google did nothing wrong.
FTS: "The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property."
At least read the summary.....
(on an unrelated topic, I have to wait more than 4 minutes between posts now. Excellent karma and no downmodded comment in weeks. Excellent system here, guys)
Parent
Re:more or less true, but . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:more or less true, but . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Next time I see a Google van on my private roads, it will be greeted with a bazooka. On my lands, there can be "no expectation of safety."
Parent
This is what starts to happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. I can't help but feel we're entering an age of total surveillance. Both major contenders for US President voted in favor of FISA legislation - it's just one step in the incremental process of the decimation of individual privacy.
It was only the "left wing liberals" who stirred up much of a fuss over this, and everyone knows that they're nutjobs anyway. The majority of the American populace is uneducated or uninterested in these issues, and they're happy to sit idly by while their freedom erodes before their eyes!
Parent
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think many of you realise it, but this is very much an American discussion. The whole privacy/trespass thing is an Americanism, and the rest of us *already* think you're "paranoid weirdos" (joke, joke).
Seriously, though, in England and Wales there is an established legal Right to Wander; so long as I don't do damage, I can wander wherever I like. Am I tresspassing? The owner can do nothing about it unless I do damage. Am I invading their privacy by taking photos of their property? Tough.
This is not a failure of the law; it is a balance of the rights of the public versus the rights of individual property owners. My rights as a member of the public trump theirs as property owners, in this case.
Parent
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that the right to roam gives you quite as much freedom as you think it does - I can't spend long researching it, but google searches suggest that it applies to open countryside. You most certainly do not have the right to roam on to my driveway, for example, which is clearly private property.
Parent
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Satellite Images (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a big difference in the detail available in most sat photos versus Street View. It'll be interesting to see what gets considered private or public. Currently, it seems it's okay if you can tell I have a black car but not that my front door's red.
Re:Satellite Images (Score:5, Insightful)
> There's a big difference in the detail available in most sat photos versus Street View. It'll be interesting to see what gets considered private
> or public. Currently, it seems it's okay if you can tell I have a black car but not that my front door's red.
So what happens once satellite photos are the same quality as photos taken from a few metres away?
Parent
Re:Satellite Images (Score:4, Funny)
We'll have bigger problems to worry about, because physics will be broken.
Parent
Trespass (Score:5, Informative)
If the photo had been obtained from space then there is no case. But if a google car drove down a private street that was marked private property then they do have a good case for trespass. Normally such roads are gated though.
Trespassing (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see what happens when google street view tries to do this in Texas, where you can legally shoot someone for encroaching on private property to perform "criminal mischief"... I'm sure they'll agree that taking photos on private property counts as criminal mischief in Texas, assuming it's clearly posted as private property.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
But it makes for some mighty polite Door-to-Door salesmen.
Parent
No expectation of privacy?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Old man speaks up (Score:5, Funny)
I think I speak for many of us oldtimers when I say:
GOOGLE! GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!
Dear Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you. If there's no such thing as privacy in the modern world, it's because fuckwit corps think they can do whatever they damn well please. Way to reveal yourself as one of them.
Google's defense attorney... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Luddites (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Luddites (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Claiming Privacy Doesn't Mean Proving it (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's submission discussed "complete privacy", not mere "privacy".
Clearly, we have rights to photograph private property if we do it from a public vantage point. The fact that this house is privately held has no bearing here.
The issue, it seems, is the impact of the "private road" sign. Does it mean permission must be granted before anyone, at any time, can use that road? Does the law argue that the "private road" sign compels all others to stay off that road?
And, if I was Google, I'd look into the degree to which that "private road" and that property receive any kind of public support. Are police allowed on it to provide protection? The fire department? Are there beneficial tax consequences involved for someone maintaining a private road? Are any public monies used in any way in relation to that road?
And, can the road's owners prove that they have maintained their privacy claim by prohibiting all others from using the road?
BTW, a driveway with a "no trespassing" sign is not the same as a "private road" with no such sign. You may call the police and your lawyer, but asserting a privacy claim is not the same as proving it.
Parent
Re:Luddites (Score:5, Interesting)
And if the couple prosecuted Google for trespassing, they would have a valid case and be well within their rights. However, suing for lost property value and mental distress is just bullshit that has nothing to do with the law
Parent
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I hope they win (Score:4, Funny)
Announcing Google Home View!
Just click on a house to see pictures of the interior and it's occupants in the restroom!
Parent
Re:Wanted: addresses of Google employees (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:private road / private property (Score:4, Insightful)
You are conflating the notions of "Private Property" and "No Trespassing." A sign indicating that some area is private property does not mean you can't be there. It simply informs you that you are not on public land, and that the owner of the property thus has certain rights to enforce the rules of their choosing.
A shopping mall, for example, may make a rule stating that nobody under 18 can be in the mall without an accompanying guardian after 5 pm, or establish rules for where you can and cannot park your car, or ban skateboarding on the premises. A country club may ask you to leave because of your terrible BO. Whatever. The point is that it just means you are not on public land.
A "No Trespassing" sign, on the other hand, both establishes that the land is private property (or government controlled, I suppose), and that the owner's rules include "don't set foot here without my explicit consent".
"No Trespassing" usually implies "Private Property" but not vice-versa.
Parent