Google Says Complete Privacy Does Not Exist 543
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.
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.
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)
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)
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:Perhaps they should photograph around (Score:5, Informative)
Re:more or less true, but . . . (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Where can we expect privacy? (Score:1, Informative)
I really don't see that Google has a leg to stand on here.
I'll agree completely that there's no expectation of privacy in a public place. However, google seems intent on redefining "public".
The street, of course, is a public place. I have no problems with streetview most of the time.
My cousin's garden is surrounded by high trees and can't be overlooked by any of the neighbouring houses. Does she have a reasonable expectation of privacy there? She's quite upset that she's grainily visible in her bikini.
But driving up and publishing photos of someone else's land, clearly marked as "private property" is not acceptable. That the couple are "far from hermits" is totally irrlelvant; google (or their representatives) trespassed then took and published photos of private property.
I assume that google knows this, but is terrified that conceding this case will open he floodgates for countless other people with similar complaints.
Im not sure (Score:3, Informative)
First IANAL, and the laws vary from state to state but here is my take, as being a hunter and running into these situations.
1. Private property sign if placed off the road, means you cant trespass off the road onto the fenced in land.
2. Driving up the above road is not illegal. Even if there is a sign that says "private drive" as long as there was no gate. If there was a gate, and you breached the gate to drive up the "private drive" then you would have trespassed.
3. Making a film of property marked private property is not illegal. Filming off a private drive that is not gated is not illegal.
Now that I said that, I think it would have been proper, to go ahead and go up to the house and ask them if it was ok, it would only have taken a minute. But the act of driving up the ungated road and filming while they were driving on it will not be found trespass.
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:3, Informative)
You can fly as low as the law allows. I do not know what that is, if it is a federal law, or governed at the state level. But the bottom line is that Google must comply with laws. They cannot do whatever they want.
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:more or less true, but . . . (Score:3, Informative)
That's how the property value was lowered - they allowed people to get a good look at the house beforehand. Same way that when cars are for sale online, the gaping rust holes and frame damage are conveniently not seen in the pics - having proper pics available would decrease the car's value.
It's not a bad house to me though, it mostly just needs some landscaping to give it that nice pre-apocalypse look...but then again I'm not a real estate junkie who needs to have a perfect house so that it looks like I'm wealthy while I'm actually neck-deep in debt.
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:3, Informative)
"in England and Wales there is an established legal Right to Wander".
No there isn't. The 'right to roam' act merely codifies access to land we already had access to.
To quote from the Ramblers' site (http://www.ramblers.org.uk/freedom/),
"This new legal right - or right to roam - provided by The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), applies only to mapped areas of uncultivated, open countryside namely mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land."
As someone who takes part in shooting activities in the country I'm fed up with dick heads who think they have a right to wander across the range! Private property is exactly that.
Maybe you're thinking of Scotland? You have a presumptive right there but you have to clear off if the landowner asks you to.
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.
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.
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:more or less true, but . . . (Score:3, Informative)
If the photographers were employees, Google is fucked. One of the protections of being incorporated is that your company is liable for your actions as an employee in most circumstances. If the photographers were contractors, Google could bring them in as Third Parties. Who ultimately pays would depend one which company's policy is covering.
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".
Re:Luddites (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:3, Informative)
.
The post box is where you mounted it.
Implied consent.
You can rent a box downtown for that shrink wrapped copy of Hustler you don't want the neighbors to see.
FedEx ships to the address you gave Amazon.com.
The government worker has statutory authority, if it is a matter of public safety the utility worker has that as well. He can also argue contract and consent.
No access means no water, no sewage line.
No gas, no electricity, no phone service, no cable TV.
Dependent on State Law (Score:2, Informative)
The rules of trespass are dependent on the state you reside in. The issue here is how the rules apply to rural property which is different in some ways than urban property due to the cost of putting up a fence on a property that could be at least 40 acres.
Most states require a sign that states either "PRIVATE PROPERTY" or "NO TRESPASSING" that is of a certain height and width and includes the name and address of a contact person. In some states, this sign is to only be posted at the entrance of the property (such as New Hampshire) and in other states, it is to be posted at intervals around the property (such as NY that requires a sign every 40 ft).
Once the property is posted, it becomes the responsibility of the party without permission to enter the property to keep off. Once there is evidence that they were on the property and the property owner can prove it, you can be charged with trespass.
Also, you cannot claim that you cannot read or do not understand English. The signs are usually a special color (usually yellow with black lettering). This has been an issue with the Hmong community in this part of the country.
This will get more interesting however because as Google tries to photograph more rural regions of the country where the map may mark a road but the road itself is private property. Hell, even some suburban areas have streets that are private property (here, condo developments and apartment complexes have private streets which are signed a different color than public streets).
True, there is no expectation of privacy from a public street but once you hit a "No Trespassing" sign, there is an expectation of privacy beyond that sign.
BTW, the air rights for a property is generally 200ft. You can put an antenna on your property up to 200ft without notification to the FAA. It is obviously lower near airports.
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:1, Informative)
Under English Common Law there is an 'Implied Right Of Access' to your property.
This 'right' exist to protect genuine 'casual callers' i.e. postal workers, milkmen, delivery drivers ect: against an accusation of 'trespass'.
This is not an 'ABSOLUTE' right, and although not usual, this 'RIGHT' can quite easily be REMOVED.
With this in mind, actually parking on your driveway and taking pictures would not be an offence unless you write to them first and tell them that you revoke their right to do so.
Then you can sue them for tresspass or take out an injuction against them.
Re:Trespassing in texas (Score:3, Informative)
If you do that, you will go to jail.
", despite these efforts, someone trespasses on your property, the best thing to do is to call the sheriff and let them handle the trespasser. If for some reason you cannot have law enforcement intervene, Texas law (Section 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code) allows you to use "reasonable force" to protect your property. Reasonable force includes any force that is not potentially lethal. This would probably include physically blocking the trespasser's entry onto the land and perhaps even showing the trespasser that you have a gun and are prepared to use it if warranted. However, as discussed below, an actual discharge of a firearm, unless clearly not aimed anywhere towards the trespasser, may expose the land owner to unwanted scrutiny by law enforcement."
So if they were stealing something, ya you could shoot. But shooting somebody taking a film will land you in jail.
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.
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Go take a look at your property survey.
It should have an easement marked out for the utility poles and for the workers to get to them.
If there is not an easement for them to reach those utility poles, consult a lawyer & tell the workers to GTFO.
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
Streisand effect.
Re:Perhaps they should photograph around (Score:1, Informative)
Google actually had a problem when they went on a military installation and took photographs.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/62017.html [technewsworld.com]
Re:more or less true, but . . . (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:3, Informative)
As I posted elsewhere, the grey area would most likely have to do with whether the road is a right-of-way or whether there is an easement - whether or not other people need to use that road to access their own property.
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.
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:2, Informative)
You just lost the game [wikipedia.org].
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)