Google: No such thing as complete privacy

Google's Street View service didn't invade a Pittsburgh couple's privacy, the search giant said in a response to the couple's April lawsuit over the matter.

"Plaintiffs' privacy claims fail, among other reasons, because the view of a home from the driveway that can be seen by any visitor, delivery person, or telephone repairman is not private," the company said in response to the suit, according to a copy posted at The Smoking Gun. Google seeks to dismiss the claim in its filing.

"Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the complaint. "Plaintiffs live in the 21st century United States, where every step upon private property is not deemed by law to be an actionable trespass...Unless there is a clear expression such as a gate, fence, or 'keep out' sign indicating that the public is not permitted to enter, anyone may approach a home by a walkway, driveway, or any other route commonly used by visitors, without liability for trespass."

View Larger Map

Aaron and Christine Boring sued Google April 2 in Allegheny County, arguing Google's "reckless conduct" in driving down a private road and publishing the resulting photos caused "mental suffering" and hurt the value of their home. The two are seeking more than $25,000 in damages.

Google also takes issue with the Borings' approach to the matter, though stopping short of accusing them of opportunistically trying to extract some money from a wealthy company.

"When plaintiffs discovered these images, rather than using the simple removal option Google affords, they sued Google for invasion of privacy, trespass, negligence, and conversion. Plaintiffs seek damages form 'mental suffering' and diminished property value supposedly caused by the public accessibility of the photos. They claim these injuries even though similar photos of their home were already publicly available on the Internet, and even though they drew exponentially greater attention to the images in question by filing and publicizing the lawsuit while choosing not to remove the images of their property from the Street View service," Google said in the response.

It shouldn't be a surprise that Google didn't roll over with a quick settlement but instead sought to dismiss the suit. Doubtless the company isn't eager for any sort of precedent that could hinder Street View.

Legalities aside, Google Maps' satellite and street-level views have raised some privacy concerns. In response to one type of concern, Google now blurs faces visible in Street View.

[theonlybuster]

And by sueing Google you've just caused yourself even more pain.

[sjsobol]

While I agree with Google that there is no such thing as absolute privacy, if the road was POSTED as a private road, does that not mean something?

[Pete Bardo]

"If the road was posted as a private road..." That's a pretty big if.

Hey, with all this publicity, maybe the price will go up. Ya think Google will ask for a share of the increased value?

[magicmaster]

magicmaster: "No such thing as complete immunity." And who said you are immune from lawsuits even though you provide remove service? That's the price you are going to pay for tampering with others' privacy.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Here's the simple thing- if a newspaper takes my picture and posts it, they have to get my permission unless it is related directly to a news story and is public. A TV station has to get you to sign a release or else they have to blur your face. It's the same thing here.

Satellite photos are fine- they are public and non-commercial. Google is taking pictures and posting them along with advertisements for commercial purposes.

You know what, Google? No problem. You can post pictures of my house- for a fee. If you don't pay the price I stipulate, then you will have to remove the content. Making money off the image of my house is theft. Let them try to defend that.

[Lerianis]

They are taking YOUR PICTURE. If they are only taking a picture of your home (which could look like MANY others in your neighborhood).... you have no right to ask for payment.

Making money off the image of your house is NOT theft, not by any measure.

[ricardojorgemacas]

Well, if you're going to do that, think in a way to make everyone else that sees your house to pay you. Dont forget that "anyone may approach a home by a walkway, driveway, or any other route commonly used by visitors". They are publishing the street, not your house. And the street is public. And if you dont want google to display it, just make a fence or something. Or tell them you dont want to. But do not forget that, if i want, i can just get into a plane and arrive at youre street. Google maps its just a less expensive way :) .

[The_Decider]

You were going good, you actually make legitimate points until you wrote: "Making money off the image of my house is theft."

What was stolen?

Other than that turn into complete insanity, I agree with you. Google seems to think it has to the right to catalog anything and everything and they will learn the hard way that they have no such right.

[The_Decider]

Ricardo,

The street they live on is a private street.

[digitaltoothpick]

"Google is taking pictures and posting them along with advertisements for commercial purposes."
Newspapers do the exact same thing, and don't need any releases.
Consider: a newspaper uses your images in a news story, and places an ad next to it. PRESTO! It's for commercial purposes, according to you. Obviously, your logic is flawed.
You don't have the right to privacy that you seem to think you have.

[Imalittleteapot]

Google may even be right, but if people don't like it then people don't like it. I've seen a few companies that seem untouchable suddenly become touchable as soon as they get that we know best attitude. As a company you only have one job. Provide people with the services they want and nothing more. I've heard a lot of complaints about this street view stuff. Haven't heard many say anything good about it . If you think it's cool then pop in. I'd like to hear from you. However, If most people don't like it then Google needs to stop. There's no reason to come in and force a service when the people are saying stop stop. I'm not for it or against it. I'm just saying there are plenty of intelligent people at Google that could spend their time better on new ideas that aren't controversial. Sometimes I think the big companies have forgotten what business is about. When you've gotten big enough to think you can force it down their throats then you've gotten too big for your own good.

[digitaltoothpick]

The fact that people complain does not mean a company must stop doing what it does. Even a majority of commentors who complain doesn't mean that.
And businesses aren't in business to provide services and goods; they are in business to make money for their owners.
As a rule, you will see many more complaints than praises for any given businesses, because those who are satisfied show it with their continued business.

[Imalittleteapot]

I realize this so that's why I asked if anybody actually used this service. I'm sure some people use it, but usually only complaints on the boards. No matter what you sell people are going to complain but when it comes to driving up people's private driveways or bordering on illegal acts it wouldn't hurt Google a bit to say, hey maybe we could find a better way to do this, instead of just saying we're the big big Google that can do what we want. I don't think it is what Google is doing is the problem. I think it boils down to an attitude problem that upsets people when a simple compromise would probably work just fine.

[Endbringer]

Private drives, at least here in TN, are not public right-of-ways. Therefore, if the property owner wants to restrict access they may. If that street is truly a private drive, then Google drove onto private property, took pictures, and then posted it on the internet without their permission. If the street is actually part of the ROW, then the home owners have no standing.

[ricardojorgemacas]

You CANT just ask a payment for their pictures. Then you would have to think in a way to make everyone else that sees your house to pay you. Dont forget that "anyone may approach a home by a walkway, driveway, or any other route commonly used by visitors". They are publishing the street, not your house. And the street is public. And if you dont want google to display it, just make a fence or something. Or tell them you dont want to. But do not forget that, if i want, i can just get into a plane and arrive at your street. Google maps its just a less expensive way .

[Dr_Zinj]

A private drive is still a route commonly used by visitors to a home or business, just as much as any walkway, or driveway.

[Endbringer]

But you're failing to realize that a private drive is still private property. The property owner can restrict access to their own property. Driveways and sidewalks that are on public lands, the right-of-way, cannot be resticted. It does not matter if someone paves a road on their property and it looks like a public street, it's still on private property.

[The_Decider]

Visitors have implicit permission to be there.

If a company goes to a house on a private drive, they are either delivering something or responding to a request from the owner, again implicit permission.

People driving around taking pictures have no permission to be on private property.

[umbrae]

The only reason their is not privacy is because of brain dead and intrusive companies like Google. I used to like google, but this street view thing is too much. I can understand it on business streets, but there is NO REASON to go into private communities without authorization. That is just disrespectful.

As for their "removal mechanism", I have been waiting for 3 months to have my house removed. I have already contacted my city government for a widespread ban on Google, and looking into legal actions myself. If they removed it when I asked, I would would have only been disappointed; however, at this point, I am pissed.

[digitaltoothpick]

"I can understand it on business streets, but there is NO REASON to go into private communities without authorization. "
Authorization from who, exactly?

[Endbringer]

"Authorization from who, exactly?"


From the property owner, duh.

[Rob Bond]

I love the street views. It helps make you familiar with an area, so when you get to where you are going....you have already have an idea of what it looks like. I clicked on the map above, and if that is the street view in question....there is no "Private Drive" sign posted anywhere. I went all up and down the road, and found nothing posted. I think people should get used to the idea that in this tech age, that we now live in a small world. Heck....we know what's happening on the other side of the world basically within moments of it happening. You think Google is the only one that has pictures of your street, or house??? Ha ha.....How naive you are!!!

[Heebee Jeebies]

Well, if the road is not a public road that means it is owned by someone and that means Google when they drove down it to take the pictures trespassed on private property. I hope Google gets hit big. Google like many other companies think they can do whatever they want because they have money and apparently a lot of blind support from a bunch of stupid people.

Robert

[rfelgueiras]

Street view is a service and a damn good one too, it's helped me out a number of times when I have been traveling to areas I'm not familiar with. If it happened to show some thing private or a security risk say like, palate of gold bars or showing a home that may have a habit of leaving doors open, I can understand being upset enough to have it removed. Besides that, it would be no different than me standing on the street. People need to get over themselves. Nobody wants to see their homes unless they are looking for it and to be honest if someone REALLY wanted to they can just follow a map, regardless of whether the photo is online or not. In fact, the street would probably be less busy if it's online rather than have someone diving up and down the block trying to look for the right house.

[Endbringer]

No one is saying that you cannot take pictures of your house from a public street, sidewalk, etc. But if you have to go onto private property to take the picture of someone's house, then that is illegal unless you get the property owner's permission.

[amerhome]

Google Street Maps raises brand new privacy and security issues that were never previously faced by consumers or policymakers. While satellite images of neighborhoods are available from many sources, their overhead shots are too grainy at their highest magnification to show much more than the rough outline of homes or surrounding details like landscaping or personal property like automobiles. By comparison the photographs of homes, people and property in residential neighborhoods available through Google Street View have excellent resolution. The Google Street View tool allows you to drive through residential neighborhoods just as you would in a car, pausing wherever you like, backing up or pulling forward, and zooming in to study the subject as closely as needed from multiple angles.

Any activities of a homeowner visible from the street are not protected by existing federal privacy laws. If the neighborhood busybody is standing on the sidewalk in front of your home and sees you from doing something on your property that you wished they hadn't seen, there's no law that can stop them from telling the neighbors. Google's new Internet tool gives the neighborhood gossip a universal audience. A Google Street View of that activity can quickly find its way to YouTube, where employers, relatives and everybody else can see it (many already have). The ability to request Google to take the image down from street views won't have any effect at that point.

It is appropriate to reconsider existing privacy laws in light of the reach and power of this new tool. States are beginning to address the challenges to privacy posed by 21st century Internet technologies such as Google Street View. Several privacy experts who have posted opinions on this case on a legal blog believe that Google's actions would be in violation of California's privacy law had it occurred there.

There are other serious concerns as well. Google Street View can become a very efficient advance research tool for burglars or car thieves, and would also eliminate any risk that an alert neighbor might notice them and copy down their license plate if they were to case the neighborhood in advance in their own car. Burglars can easily identify which homes are partially blocked from the view from the street or neighboring homes by landscaping or other factors. Professional car thieves can easily identify the make and model of homeowner?s cars parked in their driveway or in front of their house, which is important because the demand for certain brands and models of stolen cars is much higher than others.

For these reasons we fear that Google Street View may be used increasingly by criminals. It seems to us that posting picture of car in high demand among car thieves on the Internet, coupled with a home location is not that much different in terms of potential outcome than posting a social security number along with a name.

Homeowners have no way of knowing in advance that images of them or their homes have been put up on the Internet by Google Street View. If Google truly cares about consumer privacy and does not want to help burglars and car thieves, it should get advance permission from homeowners before posting those images in the future. If Google isn't willing to change their current policy in that regard, the state legislatures and/or Congress should consider whether reasonable 21st century privacy rights dictate that they should change it for them.

[CorvettemanAZ]

I feel like John Stossel, "Give me a break!".

[open-mind]

If their private property (which apparently looked public) was not posted as private, I think Google should file a defamation counter-suit (if that's possible).

[PIRobinson]

I am a PA licensed and bonded cyber investigator (private detective) and computer forensics consultant and I work on a broad range of civil and criminal cases where computer information is a key component.

Re Google: "No such thing as complete privacy claim," yes there is when placement of information not readily available otherwise results in the undue risk and wreckless endangerment of a subject's well being.

Well not an issue in this case based on the account by the author here, the placement of online information that wrecklessly endangers children, the elderly, and others whom have protection from abuse or restraining orders on subjects would clearly here in PA most likely result in civil and or criminal charges by experienced counsel and investigtors.

Charles Robinson, MA
Private Investigator (Detective)
Computer Sciences & Behavioral Consultant
Manage Net Incorporated / DBA PI Robinson
Direct Office Number: +1 215.721.9890
Authenticated Fax Number: +1 215.721.9106
Company Web Site: www.ManageNet.Net

[ciscoguy]

Private Drives are actually only 'private' if they are closed to the public for a certain period of time. Here in Michigan to make a street or a drive private it must be closed for a period of time every 6 months or something like that. A 'Driveway' that only leads to a single home is another story.