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.
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.
Wanted: addresses of Google employees (Score:3, Interesting)
We should collect the home addresses of Google employees (preferably at the top level) and install some webcams ourselves.
Or hire some papparazi to annoy them.. would finally give Britney a break as well.
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!
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.
Re:private road / private property (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean those No Trespassing signs I see along plots of land throughout town can be ignored? I seriously always thought that I could be prosecuted with a pretty significant chance of losing my case if I walked across the property if a) caught and b) up against a motivated property owner. Care to share some details of your findings that require more than a sign?
But there is some privacy at least in Maryland (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to put up security cameras around my house. I talked to my county police for advice on the proper ways to go about doing this. I'm not allowed to point them at someone else's property at all (without their permission), not even if it's visible from public view. I can point them at my own property, and I can point them at public property. I'm also not allowed to record any audio at all, not even if it's pointed at my own stuff.
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
No expectation of privacy?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Agreed.
Am I invading their privacy by taking photos of their property? Tough.
That depends on the nature of the photos, and what you do with them. Taking pictures detailing the layout of a room (and publishing them) may very well constitute a violation of privacy and/or even copyright.
They want to own the light! (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a quote from "The State of the Art", a short story by Iain M. Banks where a Culture contact ship visits Earth. One of them is visiting a colleague in an apartment in Paris, and sees a sign saying "No photographs allowed". The idea of owning the light and imposing restrictions on its use is just preposterous to her.
Re:Luddites (Score:3, Interesting)
I did read the article and it doesn't say anything about suing for trespassing.
I'm guessing that they figured that a trespassing lawsuit wouldn't pay as much as "lowered property values" and "mental stress" so they went with the latter. I don't see how a simple Google Street View image lowers your property values. Beside, Google has a clear method for removing the images. They should have contacted Google and asked for those images to be taken down. If Google didn't comply in a reasonable amount of time, then you could sue for something other than the initial trespassing.
Of course, a guilty verdict on a hypothetical trespassing charge would rely on other factors like visible signs marking the property as private. If the only sign is obscured by a bush, then the Google van can't be faulted for not knowing that it was a private road. If there are multiple easily viewed signs, then Google is at fault.
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.
Re:Luddites (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't see how a simple Google Street View image lowers your property values.
Well, playing devil's advocate here...
I suppose the argument could be that people who buy houses with long driveways and "private property" signs are the sort of people who value their privacy. They are willing to pay a premium for a home that is not immediately accessible to anyone who drives by.
Prospective buyers who view the house on Google streetview might come to the conclusion that, if the property is visible on Streetview, the home might not be all that private after all, and would not be willing to pay as much for it.
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)
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, this only applies to specific types of land- mountain, heath, moorland etc. It doesn't let you go wandering at will in people's gardens, and I suspect it doesn't apply to a private access road to someone's property.
However, unless the sign specifically forbids access, visitors etc, I suspect all it does is allow the householders to ask Google etc to leave, since it must be in some law somewhere that people are allowed to cross your property in order to knock on the front door!
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Spanish-only speaking citizens?
What about analphabets, blind people?
What about other countries, for example India with 23 official Languages and more than 1200 languages spoken around the rural countryside, not to mention a couple of hundred million non-readers as well.
None of the issues you raise apply to Google. Also, to deal with non-English or non-official language speakers, or illiterate people, you could simply use a picture (I don't know, maybe something like this [tripod.com], which took all of three seconds to find on... Google.) As for blind people, I feel like you're probably not going to have many of them wandering around taking photos on private property, but I could be wrong.
Without even talking about Google Earth photographing topless people from Satellites in their backyard, what about ultralight planes covering the property?
Or drones, should Google be allowed to use drones to make pictures?
If not, why? Other companies use air photography too.
The question is about Street View, which is taken using trucks, not aircraft.
I don't like being watched either, but they kind of have a point.
Not really. They say that there's no such thing as complete privacy because of satellite photograpy. Fine, that may be true, but how does that justify doing away with what privacy is left, and how does it naturally apply to taking photographs with trucks on private property? It doesn't. It's a pretty stupid argument, if you ask me.
after a short look (Score:3, Interesting)
I did a quick bit of research. The laws that cover this vary quite a bit. The maximum fine I could find is 250$ and 15 days in jail. Which would be placed upon the people who actually trespassed.
Reading on the New York government website, the requirements also include size of signs required, spacing, and wording.
In addition, road and navigable waterways can be traversed, but as an example using a boat up a river on private property means you cant fish on it, but can travel on it.
So it probably would be safe to assume you can drive up a private drive, but cant hunt, or otherwise bother wildlife, animals, or any other thing while on the road. I do not think filming falls in this category.
In addition, from what I read, it would "appear" to be if you want a road not be traveled by people "other than persons on government assignments" to not be traveled on by the public, in addition to saying "Private Property" it must be marked "NO TRESPASS"
Re:Luddites (Score:3, Interesting)
If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear. If you've something to hide, you better hide it well.
I beg to differ [illinoistimes.com]. While at that site (a local weekly newspaper) search for "Paul Carpenter" for additional stories on the crooked cop who planted dope on innocent people.
Also see this [wikipedia.org] articla about our (now incarcerated) former Governor; the linked portion explains why he declared a moratorium on capital punishment. Hint: they were executing innocent people, many who were on death row on trumped up charges.
I truly wish you were right.
Google's is a bullshit argument anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is just doing a False Dilemma [wikipedia.org] (a.k.a., false dichotomy) fallacy there. The black-and-white thinking or perfect solution fallacy kind, to be precise.
The whole handwaved bullshit depends on accepting essentially that the situation is a black-or-white dichotomy. Either you have _complete_ privacy, or you have no privacy at all.
That's essentially why they pretend that satellite photos are even relevant to a situation where Google's car drove in someone's clearly marked private property, up their driveway, and took photos from in front of their garage. The whole handwaving depends on accepting that privacy is either _complete_, as in, you can make your house invisible to satellites too, or none at all and any yahoo in your car can drive through it and take pics.
And it just isn't that kind of a dichotomy. The whole rest of the world has no problem with shades like that while (A) you can't forbid an airplane to pass above your property, but at the same time (B) forbid someone on foot or in a car from trespassing on it.
More false dichotomies, eh?
The fact that the police or fire department can enter my property, does _not_ mean that anyone else may. The police or fire men can, under certain circumstances, even break down your door and get into your house, but that doesn't apply to anyone else.
Again: it's not that kind of dichotomy, and in fact not a dichotomy at all. There is nothing that says that (A) either something is 100% a bunker and fights off even police and firemen, or (B) it's free for everyone.
No, and no. Any other fabricated bullshit you feel like producing in defense of Google? Oh, right:
This, however, crosses the border from mere stupidity to outright lunacy. I don't know where you even got _that_ monumentally retarded idea.
_Nowhere_ in any definition of private property, does it say that you _must_ prove you kept everyone else off. Private property means it's yours to use as you see fit, as long as it doesn't break other laws.
If it's my house, it means I can choose, at my discretion, who I let in and who I don't. I can invite neighbour X in, but forbid neighnbour Y from entering it. It's mine. I invite who I want. if I don't want Y in my house, it's my sole choice. Period. There is no dichotomy, and I don't have to prove anything about who else was permited or forbidden access. Just the fact that I gave my GF a key, doesn't entitle you too to one.
The same applies to my car, my garden, my driveway, anything else. There is _no_ provision anywhere that it's a strict exclusive or between noone allowed, and everyone allowed. I can allow my mom in my car, but not allow you in it. I don't have to prove anything. It's mine any you have no excuse to be in it without my permission. Period.
I know it's too much to ask to RTFA, but at least read the fucking summary, lemming. The road was clearly marked as private, Google ignored it. Same as they seem to ignore everything else these days. (E.g., recently they parked on a parking space clearl
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:3, Interesting)
That is what really scares me. Not that the right to use encryption will be taken away, but that any perceived need for it will be completely forgotten. Privacy, in general, seems to carry almost no value for most people. As another example, consider what happened when I mentioned to some friends that Facebook's employees were caught in the act of reading the extensive logs of user activity on Facebook: nobody even blinked. One person even thought it was totally justified, saying that since she went around "Facebook stalking" people, she didn't think it was a problem if Facebook itself was "stalking" her.
They won't complain to the government. They won't complain at all.
Google is not saying that (Score:3, Interesting)
What Google is saying is that they have no responsibility to protect anyone's privacy.
Of course there's privacy and of course there's an expectation of privacy, especially behind the doors of one's home.
Microsoft has essentially said that they would not honor anyone's privacy until the courts told them how much privacy they should protect. Google is doing the same thing here. Google is just saying that we can't protect your privacy so there is no privacy and so you should expect no privacy. They are saying that they have no intention of protecting anyone's privacy until the courts tell them that we actually do have privacy.
The courts do recognize privacy. The police authority also have to respect our privacy. Google's argument will fall on deaf ears. The jury will never accept ruling in favor of Google on this matter because they'll be saying that no one has any privacy. Would you want to be on the jury where you tell the people of the USA that they have no privacy?
This is a lame argument on Google's part.
Aside from that the merit of the case at hand is very dim. I don't see how they could win. Your garbage is private until you put it on the curb. Then it is free game. Your home is private inside yet not on the outside because it is in full view of everyone. Does that give Google the right to spread the view further? As much as it does to allow soemone to take a photo of your home or have a photo with your home in it. It is a far stretch. The plaintiff is hoping for a settlement. Google is hoping for summary judgement. Those inbetween (us) could loose something precious if Google wins. If the plaintiff wins we all could just end up being sued right and left for privacy violations because we take a photo of something, even if it doesn't make it into the public.
Google should not be posturing this position. Soon it will only be the rich that have privacy and all we have is our unspoken thoughts.
This is not an area where profit shouldn't be coming into play. Google should know better.