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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And when planes fly overhead and take pictures anyway, what are you to do?
The government is one thing and can get this redacted easliy, but if google earth had to hide the data within the boundary of every single area of private property we wouldn't be left with much.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Nope. The only legal requirement is that Google not set foot on property if it is marked as private property....
Marked how?
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.
Without even talking about Google Earth photographing topless people from Satellites in their backyard,
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: (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
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?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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?
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: (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: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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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".
There's a name for this 'effect', but it escapes me at the moment....
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
Streisand effect.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
I can't speak for those particular folks, but if I were them, I wouldn't be worried about people checking out my house on Google because of the publicity; it wouldn't hurt me a bit if they did. It's the simple principle of the issue that would make me angry: "No harm, no foul" doesn't work. Google violated the rights of the landowners, and Google must be held accountable for that.
"Don't be evil", indeed. "Complete privacy doesn't exist"? That's ludicrous... I wonder if Google's employees worry about that wh
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.
The Streisand Effect should not become an excuse (Score:3, Insightful)
As per the subject. Just because the following sequence of events may be likely...
1. drive onto private property ...that doesn't mean that Step 5 makes the problem start at Step 4. The problem started at Step 1.
2. take pictures
3. publish them publicly en masse
4. get sued
5. Streisand Effect!
6. more people will (attempt to) drive on said private property
If we all just keep screaming "Streisand Effect!", then we would be forcing people into tacitly allowing anybody to just come onto private property (and oth
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, 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: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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
In most of those cases, you probably want them to go on your property, or have agreed that they are allowed to go on your property under certain circumstances. You wouldn't want the forbid the mail man, Fedex or UPS from coming to your door, but you could if you want to.
Utility workers have access as a condition of providing their service. I'm not sure about tax appraisers, they may not actually have the right to go on your property whenever they want. The city may be required to give proper notice (the d
Re: (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)
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: (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 als
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Worse, it means no internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Why should people have to go the expense of erecting a gate? Why can't businesses like Google ensure their contractors and employees simply behave in a decent and proper manner and have respect for notices?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if these people *really* cared about privacy, they could have put up a gate across the road to ensure no-one just wandered in.
Standard internet debate tactic, "if you don't take your point to a ridiculous extreme then it isn't valid".
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:4, Insightful)
They did!
They posted a sign saying, "Private Road" or similar (I don't know the exact requirements in your country. Arounf here, "Private Road" would suffice.)
Google minions chose to ignore it. That's crossing the "Do No Evil" line!
I would expect Google's founder to step up to the bar here and say "We're sorry. Our people screwed up."
Frankly, if GoogleSat (or whatever) flies over my house (and I become aware of what they're doing) I'm going to shoot the fuckers down.
Re:Fences, Gates and Guards.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps they should photograph around (Score:5, Informative)
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...
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)
Re:more or less true, but . . . (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
I'll call bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically what you're arguing there is that because so many people can violate your privacy, then you don't have any expectation of privacy in the first place. And that your only recourse if you want "true privacy" is to never be in a situation where someone else can rape it for you. Which seems to me like complete bullshit.
Let's apply that kind of reasoning to other kinds of interactions:
- everyone can bash in your door and steal your computer, so you don't have any expectations against breaking and enteri
Re: (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.
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!
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: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.
Re: (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 activ
Re:This is what starts to happen... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So much for do no evil. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope the Court gives Google a big punch in the face in the form of an exemplary fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a complete nonsense. Just because some set of pillocks (Paris Hilton, Jordan, everyone on Big Brother) gives up their privacy or Google decides to build a business invading people's privacy doesn't take away my right to it.
I hope the Court gives Google a big punch in the face in the form of an exemplary fine.
Maybe now it should be, "Do no evil unless we can get away with it with legal fees that are lower than the estimated profit we can make from the project related to the evil," which is the same as pretty much any company.
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?
Re:Satellite Images (Score:4, Funny)
We'll have bigger problems to worry about, because physics will be broken.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Wanted: addresses of Google employees (Score:5, Funny)
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 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
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
But it makes for some mighty polite Door-to-Door salesmen.
No expectation of privacy?? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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
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.
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.
Google's defense attorney... (Score:5, Funny)
Problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy is not a "right". Your only right is to keep your information private, but you do not have a right *to* privacy.
In this case, it is a matter of trespassing and should be treated as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Luddites? For not wanting folks driving on their private property? I am not sure why Google should be above the law.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind Google street view coming in your house unannounced and taking pictures of whatever they want.
Re:Luddites (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That might be your opinion. It might be Google's opinion. But the law states otherwise. Google needs to obey the law.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Define trespass. Solicitors are allowed on your property until they are asked to leave. Furthermore, government surveyors are allowed on your property for the purposes of map making and such. So you already don't have the protection you claim. The question is, can you combine these two parts of law to allow private surveying of the property? That's an open question for the courts to figure out, but Google seems to be on pretty firm ground. Unless there are fences or signs telling them not to enter or take p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I worry about those who are arguing that it is indeed legal, and that there is nothing we can do about that.
I worry about people who think just posting a "Private Drive" sign has any legal merit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key word in "private property" is private. To say that privacy doesn't exist is ludicrous. If you think otherwise, can I plant a spy cam in your bedroom? I hear your wife is a hottie.
If I have a long, winding driveway with a "no trespassing" sign on it and you come onto my property uninvited, I'm calling the police AND my lawyer, having you jailed for trespassing and sued for invasion of privacy. Nobody has a right to be on my property without my permission.
"Don't be evil" is clearly a hollow slogan, no
Re:Luddites (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if I take a picture of my child in my backyard, in the background you'll be able to see my neighbor's backyard. This isn't because I was on their property, but because the photons of light from the sun (or wherever) are bouncing off the objects in my neighbor's yard and traveling onto MY property. Saying: "you can't look at my property from somewhere else" is a bit ridiculous. If
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can you really be jailed for trespassing in America? If so, that's another notch on the twatometer.
Re: (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
Re:Luddites (Score:4, Insightful)
If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear.
My links refute the above statement. You do, indeed, have much to fear whether or not you're doing anything wrong, as the innocents on death row and the people being framed for drugs attest. An easy way to get revenge on someone is plant drugs in their car and call CrameStoppers and narc on them.
Also, wrong!=illegal. Adultery is wrong, but it's legal. Smoling pot isn't wrong, but it is illegal.
If you've something to hide, you better hide it well.
That's just common sense. I wasn't arguing against that statement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes the fact that part of their property is paved or might have some gravel thrown on it any different than the rest of their property? What if own a square mile of land with a house in the middle and a "driveway" a half mile long connecting to a public road at the end. Should I expect to be able to enforce my desire for uninvited individuals to enter my property and photograph it in that case?
Lets remove the drive way. I simply get between my house and the road half a mile away using an off road cap
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
Re: (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 re
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Really? You think that it is a huge coincidence that since Google started this program, house prices all over the US have dropped considerably.
If I had mod points, I wouldn't know whether to mod you funny, or paranoid. I'm leaning toward funny.
(What do you mean, there is no longer a "paranoid" mod?!)
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)
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!
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The police are the wrong people to ask regarding the law. They don't really care what the law is per se, just what makes their lives easiest.
So different to lawyers, who don't really care what the law is per so, just what makes them the most amount of money.