Judge Dismisses Google Street View Case 258
angry tapir writes "A judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Pennsylvania family against Google after the company took and posted images of the outside of their house in its Maps service. The lawsuit, filed in April 2008, drew attention because it sought to challenge Google's right to take street-level photos for its Maps' Street View feature. Judge Amy Reynolds Hay from the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Google's request for dismissing the lawsuit because 'the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any count.'"
Re:roadkill (Score:2, Insightful)
That would just be silly and expensive. Nothing more.
Re:roadkill (Score:5, Insightful)
this wasn't one of them, though (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that mistakes in sensitive privacy situations can be damaging. But this particular plaintiff, the court found, failed to show that it was damaging in their situation, which is the requirement to sue for damages. They claimed they suffered $25,000 in emotional anguish, and the court held that they didn't provide any plausible legal arguments to support that damage claim.
If we do think, as a matter of public policy, that even harmless violations should be penalized in order to discourage them, there's a way to do that: pass a law that establishes a fine for such violations. The fine, of course, should go to the government, not the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff actually was harmed. Public policy via, you know, actual laws and law enforcement, not ambulance-chasing lawyers and "mental-anguish"-inventing plaintiffs.
Re:roadkill (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
We can not afford to continue down the vein of 'If it isn't locked, then you deserve what happens to you' line of thinking.
It's crap, it's harmful, and it only empowers criminals, and insurance companies...but I repeat myself.
Gold digging (Score:1, Insightful)
I bet if I stood out on the street and took pictures of their house and posted them on my blog they wouldn't notice or care. But Google has lots of cash, so they sue them.
I worry about Google knowing too much about me, but not about them taking a picture of the outside of my house.
Re:roadkill (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea is just wrong. The very concept of local and state planning requirements puts the external view of your property as owned by the community around you, as they are the ones who must see it and their property values in turn are affected by it. This goes for commercial as well as residential and of course government properties. Anybody can see as it is on public display and anybody by extension can preserve a memory of it either upon a biological, digital or printed form.
Google certainly should be required to blank out parts of the image that show internal views, perhaps even people and vehicle registration plates but the external view of your property is something that is on show to the public. A blatant grab for money, mainly by the lawyer who of course profited by their 'advice' to their client. In Australia google was given a hard time for missing streets, this likely does relate to the greater sense of community in Australia and far stricter local and state planning controls and a much more developed idea of community ownership of the shared street scape.
Re:Copyright infringement? (Score:4, Insightful)
could you make a copyright claim about photos of your house under U.S. Copyright law, as a "3-D work of art"?
No. Taking a picture of your house isn't "copying" it. Taking the plans of your house and building an exact copy of it _might_ be a violation of copyright.
Just thinking this couple didn't think creatively enough here for the proper law that could be used for a suit.
No, the couple are just money grubbers looking for a payday from someone with deep pockets. Sometimes people just have no case.
Re:Gold digging (Score:3, Insightful)
People take pictures of buildings all the time [google.com]. If you took a picture of mine, I probably wouldn't notice... Unless you started doing it frequently. In which case, I may well take a picture of you. People are too paranoid.
Re:roadkill (Score:5, Insightful)
No. We can not afford to continue down the vein of 'If it isn't locked, then you deserve what happens to you' line of thinking. It's crap, it's harmful, and it only empowers criminals, and insurance companies...but I repeat myself.
Do you care to explain why? I think it is perfectly reasonable to drive down someone's driveway, and unless they tell me to leave, post notices prohibiting it, or make the drive inaccessible. There are certainly harmless and perfectly legitimate reasons to enter another's property. Why institute a blanket prohibition?
Re:roadkill (Score:5, Insightful)
You're an idiot for leaving your door open, and the person who took it is a thief who deserves fines and jail time. Blame and fault are not zero-sum games.
Re:roadkill (Score:5, Insightful)
We can not afford to continue down the vein of 'If it isn't locked, then you deserve what happens to you' line of thinking.
But there is two sides to things here.
Yes, you can't have a blanket "if it isn't locked" type of rule, because that would lead to chaos.
However, you can't have a blanket rule the other way too far either.
I mean, if you were wandering about outside some evening, and accidentally walked on someones private property that you didn't realize was theirs but thought was still public... What are you to do when you discover your mistake?
Most people would leave if told of that fact. You say 'whoops, my bad' and go away off the private property back the way you came.
I don't believe we need to make that person a criminal for such a small and easily fixable mistake.
I don't know, i wasn't there, but it could easily have been just that type of mistake as it is to be a malicious attack on someones privacy by the Google van.
I'm fairly sure when asked that Google does remove photos people are in. That is similar to saying 'whoops, our bad, we will fix it' to me.
Maybe I'm missing something here for a reason the Google van drivers aren't getting the benefit of the doubt?
Re:Gold digging (Score:1, Insightful)
Jesus, calm down a little. Is physical violence your first solution to every problem? Meathead.
Re:Copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)
If only common sense reigned, this would be so. See ASMP's page on photographing public buildings [asmp.org]; not every building is impacted, but I've seen cases where museums and the like claimed that the architecture of the building itself constitutes a work of art, and that photography of the same was forbidden.
Re:roadkill (Score:2, Insightful)
And what if you are in the country and there isnt anything to mark it as a private driveway rather than a side street? Pretty common where I live.
Re:roadkill (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Approaching someone's door [almost] always requires stepping onto their private property without their prior consent. Until that is not the norm, you cannot institute a blanket ban on the practice.
Re:roadkill (Score:3, Insightful)
That would just be silly and expensive. Nothing more.
Lawsuits are very often silly and expensive too, but you're right, that would if anything just alert people that they might be able to get more money.
Re:roadkill (Score:5, Insightful)
What an inane straw man you've created. Does anyone think, "if I can see it it is mine?" Of course not. If I park my car on the side of a (public) road or in my (private) driveway, the theft of it is the same crime. No one seriously argues that taking a parked car is "okay" because it's in a public place. The only question is whether there are privately owned places that are publicly accessible. And the answer in most places is an emphatic YES. That includes driveways, front walkways, etc. But it does NOT follow from that that the users of those spaces then somehow get rights over that place. It remains privately-owned, and a random person can't, for instance, remove the paving stones from in front of my house without expecting legal consequences. It's easy enough to keep the two sets of rights separate, unless you are willfully obtuse.
Re:roadkill (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So does this mean that... (Score:4, Insightful)
That stupid car shows up on my private property and they'll be lucky to leave with all their blood.
I've heard that in several european countries, Scotland for one, there is no law against walking onto someone else's land, provided you don't damage it. It seems a bit more complicated and debatable than that, but it seems clear that you can hike through someone's farmland and they have no legal right to shoot you. Not the case obviously in the US. What's with our trespassing obsession? I step foot on your land, you'll injure me just because you can? Is it that we think everyone is out to get us?
Re:Tresspassing no longer exists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at us getting modded down by google fanboys.
Fuck privacy, so long as the company you like is breaching it, right?
If Bush did this, we would have +5 Insightful.
This is killing my faith in slashdot.
What is left out of the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That would just be silly and expensive. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gold digging (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally reasonable. After all, tons of psychos dare the police to catch them before their crimes by doing daylight stakeouts of their potential victims. They always take a ton of photos of the outsides of the houses, it really turns them on or something.
But what you can be sure of is that it wasn't an architecture or art student, a real-estate photographer, a private investigator looking for someone else, bird-watcher checking out the birds in the chimney, or anything harmless.
Certainly it's a danger to your family. Your kids. They're the cutest ones in the whole world and it's amazing psychos haven't found them yet. Act quickly to ensure this breach is rectified.
Remember, for safety, never let anyone photograph your children. In fact, any men (and 10% of women) who see them will likely be driven to extremes of lust - prepare for group attacks where an entire mob tries to seize your children.
Seriously! If you aren't panicking you don't love your children!
Re:So does this mean that... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a mature and civil adult that will defend privacy to great extent; that is all. If I woke up in the middle of the night and you happened to be in my home
Oh, by privacy you mean safety. Because yes, certainly someone was in your house without your knowledge or permission they could be a threat.
Here we thought you were freaked out by something trivial like someone standing on the street taking pictures that included your house.
Hah hah. How dumb that would be.
Re:Gold digging (Score:4, Insightful)
Why fear? Have you been so brainwashed by the "War on Terror" that someone taking a picture of (what I'm assuming to be) a nice building would make you freak out and fear for your life?
Re:So does this mean that... (Score:3, Insightful)
And this, ladies and gentlemen, explains our violent, gun-crazy culture here in the good ole USofA. Paranoia, insecurity and materialistic tendencies--mixed with a dash of nationalism, and some whacked out views on gun rights...voila!
You know, our daughters used to be able to go door-to-door and sell Girl Scout cookies, but now days, they are more likely to be assaulted than a homeowner is. You privacy freaks suffer from a completely out-of-proportion reaction to a made-up threat. It's like wearing a parachute on a commercial flight, or wearing a motorcycle helmet while driving your car.