Google Says Complete Privacy Does Not Exist

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.

Perhaps they should photograph around

military installations, the CIA, the NSA, and other sensitive areas- just to see if there really is no privacy in the US.

Re:Perhaps they should photograph around

It actually works the other way. The council I work for commissions the arial photography and sells it to google.

Re:Perhaps they should photograph around

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...

Re:Fences, Gates and Guards....

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.

Re:Fences, Gates and Guards....

I'm pretty sure the post office steps on private property every time they go up on my porch to deliver a letter. The same with Fedex, UPS, tax appraiser and utility workers.

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....

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".

more or less true, but . . .

Google is more or less correct. If people really want "true privacy" in today's world, then they really have to never leave their house, never access the internet, never buy anything with a credit card or debit card, and don't forget your tinfoil hat. However, knowing a little bit more about this case, if the property owners in question did have a 'private property' sign up in front of the road that Google went down, then they did trespass onto their property to take the photos. If that's true, then this case is closed. Plain and simple. You don't need any fancy shmancy explanations and definitions of "privacy" here. If there was no sign, then Google did nothing wrong.

Re:more or less true, but . . .

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:more or less true, but . . .

There can be no expectation of frequency.

Re:more or less true, but . . .

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."

This is what starts to happen...

This is what starts to happen when people don't bother to protect their privacy: the notion of privacy itself starts to vanish. If this argument flies, privacy will become a thing of the past, and people who to protect their own privacy will just be labeled as "paranoid weirdos."

Re:This is what starts to happen...

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:This is what starts to happen...

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.

Satellite Images

The summary and TFA are short on details but it seems that Google's arguing that since satellite photos are permissible, there can't be an expectation of privacy wrt street-level photos.

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

> 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?

Trespass

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

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

That's a pretty retarded law :/

But it makes for some mighty polite Door-to-Door salesmen.

No expectation of privacy??

So if I sit in front of Google's NYC office and pick random employees to follow around with a camera or hire a team of paparazzi to chase Larry Page and Sergey Brin around everywhere they go there shouldn't be a problem?

Old man speaks up

I think I speak for many of us oldtimers when I say:

GOOGLE! GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!

Dear Google

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...

"Your honour, my clients knocked on the gate and shouted 'WHERE'S YOUR ROBOTS.TXT?' three times. When the plaintiffs didn't answer, that's when my clients opened the gate and took pictures of everything. What's wrong with that? Nothing! I rest my case."

Re:I hope they win

Good thing they weren't actually IN anybody's house. Why let little details like that get in the way of an otherwise decent slashdot discussion though.

Re:Wanted: addresses of Google employees

Do you really want to see Eric, Larry, or Sergi with a "wardrobe malfunction"?

Re:Luddites

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