Man Awarded $12,500 After Google Street View Camera Captured Him Naked in His Yard (cbsnews.com) 60
An Argentine captured naked in his yard by a Google Street View camera has been awarded compensation by a court after his bare behind was splashed over the internet for all to see. From a report: The policeman had sought payment from the internet giant for harm to his dignity, arguing he was behind a 6 1/2-foot wall when a Google camera captured him in the buff, from behind, in small-town Argentina in 2017. His house number and street name were also laid bare, broadcast on Argentine TV covering the story, and shared widely on social media.
The man claimed the invasion exposed him to ridicule at work and among his neighbors. Another court last year dismissed the man's claim for damages, ruling he only had himself to blame for "walking around in inappropriate conditions in the garden of his home." Google, for its part, claimed the perimeter wall was not high enough.
The man claimed the invasion exposed him to ridicule at work and among his neighbors. Another court last year dismissed the man's claim for damages, ruling he only had himself to blame for "walking around in inappropriate conditions in the garden of his home." Google, for its part, claimed the perimeter wall was not high enough.
People worry about government surveillance? (Score:5, Insightful)
But corporate surveillance is constant.
Re:People worry about government surveillance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus in most jurisdictions (especially China and more recently the US) it's quite easy for governments to get access to corporate data for "security" purposes. So any data corporate surveillance collects, government can get access to as well. Often just for a small fee, no ominous security laws required.
A lot of people don't realize this. Gun nuts in the US get bent out of shape about the idea of a gun registry, all while you can be pretty sure the NSA already has something similar based on data from buyer
Re: (Score:2)
Gun nuts in the US get bent out of shape about the idea of a gun registry, all while you can be pretty sure the NSA already has something similar based on data from buyer transactions with corporations.
To you, anyone who owns a gun is a "gun nut".
This is consistent with your ignorance about the
mechanics of the illegal gun ownership list.
It is not the NSA, it is the ATF and FBI.
It already exists, even though there is a law
specifically forbidding it. The way it works is that
when you go to buy a gun, the licensed dealer
keeps a logbook. And there is a background check,
which is a query into a federal database. The law says
that this information must not be collected into a shadow
gun registry. However, that is e
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody pays attention to the insane amounts of market consolidation going on because the brands are different although they're owned by the same companies. People do not know what a parent company is...
Re: (Score:3)
But corporate surveillance is constant.
You're right - corporate surveillance is that powers government surveillance.
Re: (Score:3)
But corporate surveillance is constant.
Well, one problem is that (eg. in he US the Supreme Court has ruled fhat) Government is allowed to access any of the private data that corporations have acquired by surveilling you. Generally without any warrant, because (the laws says) when you give (or they take) information to a corporation -- by doing business with them -- that you have thereby shared it with a third party, and that means it is no longer private, and it has no protection from Search and Seizure. If a corporation knows something about yo
The Scream (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually?
Google: (Score:2)
Google: Privacy Rapists
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even when I drive around in a full size pickup truck I cannot see over a 6.5 foot wall. Google has a tall vehicle with cameras on top to see over a 6.5 foot wall.
Visible to anyone standing on a ladder is invasion of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's go! (Score:1)
I will make it a point to stand nude when Google comes by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will make it a point to stand nude when Google comes by now.
That means your photo will only be visible to certain
Google employees. Except that they curate the good
stuff and share it with their personal friends on the Internet.
Is that against policy? Of course!
Do I have evidence that it happens?
No, I don't. It's just speculation based on knowing
how people behave, and what happens at every
other company in the world where employees are
able to access photos of people.
So if you want to put on a show for Google employees
and their friends, go ahead. You'll either wind up i
Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A 6'5" does provide privacy
Clearly not, because a Google streetview camera, which usually sits two feet above the roof of a compact hatchback sedan, was tall enough to see over. It's not like it's on a five foot boom.
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly not, because a Google streetview camera, which usually sits two feet above the roof of a compact hatchback sedan, was tall enough to see over. It's not like it's on a five foot boom.
You don't seem to understand the concept of expectation of privacy here. In many countries around the world privacy expectations follow a reasonableness test. If someone needs to put themselves in an elevated position to record you, *AND* records you, *AND* published it online, that's a breach of your expectation of privacy.
The DHL van going past during your full moon is more likely to scar the driver than invade the privacy of the person. You can accidentally peek, but as soon as you bring a camera along that excuse is gone, especially when you're Google, a company who use software to identify people and blur them out in other parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty high. Very few vehicles have seats a full meter above the height of the room of a compact car.
Obviously London is a massive exception here to an unreasonable degree, but double decker buses typically run along major routes, so views over people's fences into private areas isn't really a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
6.5' is or isn't enough to keep casual observers from seeing into your yard depending on the surroundings
How near are the other buildings are any of them multi-story?
What is the grade like, if your yard falls away from the road, pretty common think walkout basements, and such some in a car might easily see into a yard as they approach or in their mirrors as they pass by.
I don't think without knowing a lot more detail about where the house is and what the land around it is like it is possible to draw any con
Re: (Score:2)
I made the mistake of turning off safe view when trying to find relevant images. Don't make my mistake unless you love seeing Argentine dongs.
If you can find a clip from the news broadcast about this, it will probably answer all the relevant questions. I just don't have the time to wade through all those dick picks right now. Not when I still need to organize my own. They're a mess! I'll send you some for context.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the grade like, if your yard falls away from the road
That was my question too.
Here's the image [dailymail.co.uk], pixelated. You can see the car has the camera mounted with quite an elevation.
Re: (Score:1)
And what is your point?
In most countries looking into a yard is in general legal.
Making photos and publishing them is in general not.
Google is supposed to remove/blur people, registration plates, house numbers and similar from his "street view".
Seems the not only fail to do it, but then blame the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, most privacy fences are 4-6'. 4' sounds way too short to me, but you'd have to be pretty damn tall for that not to cover your crotch.
Come to think of it, there are very few people who are taller than 6'5". Even fewer in the 6'10"+ range needed to have your eyes over said fence. And most of them are too busy playing professional basketball to peep over fences.
Besides, half the fun is
Re: (Score:2)
>"That said, most privacy fences are 4-6'. 4' sounds way too short to me, but you'd have to be pretty damn tall for that not to cover your crotch. "
I have never heard of a 4 foot privacy fence. That won't afford any reasonable privacy. Every definition I have seen, is around 6+ feet. And where I live, 6 foot is the maximum allowed by code (for side/back yards; it is 4 foot for front yard), unfortunately.
Good fences make good neighbors, and all that jazz. To me, QUIET neighbors make good neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think people that tall are common.
In Argentina, someone tall enough to see over a 6' 5" wall without standing on their toes (ie. someone 6' 8" or higher; you can't see from your forehead) is in the 99.998th percentile (https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country).
If 99.998% of the population cannot see over the guy's wall (without being a peeper), I think it does in fact afford privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait. I missed where you said "paid". Never mind.
Suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
They automatically recognize and blur things like faces and license plates. It's surprising they don't do it for asses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Ass-AI hadn't yet been invented. But one can hope Google engineers are whacking one together now. Although, I'd pose naked for Google for half the $12,000....it's a deal, Google!!
Re: Suprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That'll give them something to whack together on!
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Ass-AI hadn't yet been invented. But one can hope Google engineers are whacking one together now. Although, I'd pose naked for Google for half the $12,000....it's a deal, Google!!
In my head I can hear George C Scott saying, "Mr. President, we must not allow and Ass-AI gap! [youtu.be]"
Re: (Score:1)
They automatically recognize and blur things like faces and license plates. It's surprising they don't do it for asses.
They do blur asses. they blur the faces of all the asses.
Re: (Score:1)
unbelievable (Score:2)
Re:unbelievable (Score:4, Funny)
Street View competes with Onlyfans now (Score:2)
Useless without the image (Score:4, Funny)
No image = useless articles
Re: (Score:2)
I think I've seen this at http://goatse.cx/ [goatse.cx]
Edit: Wow before submitting I checked and that website is now an attempt to mimic the timecube level of gibberish while also trying to sell a digital currency based on an gaped anus. The internet has really gone downhill. Channelling my inner Godfather: Look how they massacred my boy!
Edit2: OK FUCK timecube no longer exists either. Everything good that was on the internet is gone.
Pictures or it didnt happen (Score:2)
Pictures or it didnt happen
Re: (Score:2)
This is framed wrong. (Score:2)
That's how I'd approach it anyway. I don't hang dong for free.
2017 ? (Score:2)
SO this story happened in 2017 and it is now just getting posted? Or they guy finally got his money? I'm sure this happened before the image scrubbers worked properly.
Hey Google! (Score:2)
What the market will bare (Score:2)
Seems like a fair number. Supposedly, male "models" make far less than female "models". Not that I would know this.
Apple (Score:4, Funny)
Apple Maps weighed in on this story.
In a court hearing in District Court in Cupertino,
Brian Andrich was called to the witness stand.
Under cross-examination, he explained the
problem experienced by Officer Yardley was
of his own making. "You see, well as everyone
has seen by this point, you're holding it wrong."
So, where is it? (Score:2)
Or did Google remove it? ;)
OK, guys and gals, important safety tip! (Score:2)
This guy didn't look around and notice that "Hey, all the taller than normal trucks on that road over there can see me!" before whipping the gear off, that's on him.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no it turns out it's not all on him, that's why he won.
Only 12,500? (Score:1)