Google wins Street View privacy suit

A couple in Pittsburgh whose lawsuit claimed that Street View on Google Maps is a reckless invasion of their privacy lost their case.

Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant last April, alleging that Google "significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests" when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked "private road." The couple claimed in their five-count lawsuit that finding their home clearly visible on Google's Street View caused them "mental suffering" and diluted their home value. They sought more than $25,000 in damages and asked that the images of their home be taken off the site and destroyed.

However, the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania wasn't impressed by the suit and dismissed it (PDF) Tuesday, saying the Borings "failed to state a claim under any count."

Ironically, the Borings subjected themselves to even more public exposure by filing the lawsuit, which included their home address. In addition, the Allegheny County's Office of Property Assessments included a photo of the home on its Web site.

The Borings are not alone in their ire toward the Google Maps feature. As reported earlier, residents in California's Humboldt County complained that the drivers who are hired to collect the images are disregarding private property signs and driving up private roads. In January, a private Minnesota community near St. Paul, unhappy that images of its streets and homes appeared on the site, demanded Google remove the images, which the company did.

However, Google claims to be legally allowed to photograph on private roads, arguing that privacy no longer exists in this age of satellite and aerial imagery.

"Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the Borings' complaint

Not long after the feature launched in May 2007, privacy advocates criticized Google for displaying photographs that included people's faces and car license plates. And last May, the company announced that it had begun testing face-blurring technology for the service.

[PhaseDMA]

I can see the problem with faces and such, but it it is accessible by everyone and there 24/7 (such as the road) there isn't much room for complaint.

If I was them I would be far more concerned with the images from Microsoft's birds eye view.

[BrooklynNellie]

I find Google's argument very spurious. I am surprised the court upheld their "right" to invade private property. If, as they claim, "Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," why did they need to drive onto the property? Why not just use their fancy-schmancy satellites?

[Grifter02]

If anyone can drive up those roads at any time of day and see it with their own eyes, then what difference does it make if someone takes a picture of it?

[gerrrg]

If something is visible to the public, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This has been a long-standing legal determination, which is why this case was tossed the second it reached a judge.

Satellite technology such as Panoramio is far more invasive to properties behind closed doors and privately-owned roads, giving you an angular view from 4 different sides. Where Google Street View drivers cannot reach, Panoramio can, and satellite resolution is even better than Google Street View. To suggest that Google use satellite technology is to suggest that Google invade privacy MORE than Street View is able to. No one complains about Panoramio; I wonder why? <--Rhetorical question, do not attempt to answer.

If a street is owned by the public or if there is a public easement, you do not have the right to prevent others from using that public property. You only have rights so far as they do not encroach upon the public's interest, and in fact your right to own property is never absolute; the government always has the greater right.

[BrooklynNellie]

Grifter02, what do you not understand about private property? Just because the road is not gated does not change the private property status. If you are on a public road or sidewalk, you can take all the pictures you want. Once you step onto private property, you are trespassing.

[gerrrg]

Excuse me, not Panoramio, but Microsoft Virtual Earth, that is...or virtual globetrotting:

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/77/view/?service=1

[umbrae]

Just because someone can see your house from space does not mean you have a right to drive up their road and take pictures. The problem with this is the couple wanted to get a large reward and did not proper word their lawsuit. If they went with the intention to regain their privacy rather than to fulfill their greed, then the case would probably have went to court.

Complete privacy may not exist, but that does not give people the right to peek into your windows. They should have file a peeping tom police report and made this a criminal case.

[U. Tripps]

The court didn't uphold any of Google's rights. The court rejected a crappy case. Very different.

[shardsofmetal]

If it's visible from the road, then it's not a problem. If they started taking pictures inside peoples' houses, then it would be a problem. However, Google isn't making visible any images you wouldn't have access to in person.

[rmoore5]

I think it laughable that people think someone would care to look at them.

[merelogic]

funny... for an instant I thought you were talking about twitter.

[Archus]

Gerrg makes some pretty interesting, and true, arguments. BTW, Panoramio uses Google.

The greater argument in this case is, in the day of auto geotagged pictures, what is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I mean, if it's anywhere on the net, by your own hand or by the hand of someone who has the authority, do you have an expectation of privacy at all? I'm gonna go with no. I mean in the boring case, the city already had there property's picture on the net, so how did Google disregard their privacy that way? and, to further the question, have they ever put a picture of their property, in any way, on the internet. If so, haven't they removed their right to privacy in that regard. We aren't talking about people, or personal information, we;re talking about the structure itself. I can definite see Google's case on point of satellite imagery.

[massfat]

If they choose to put up images of their property, that is different from somebody else taking the pictures without their consent. The problem here, is that people are trespassing on private property. This case was not properly worded, and the intention was not in the right place. Instead of talking about mental damage, they should make this a criminal case and claim the people taking pictures are criminally trespassing on private property, possibly causing property damage, and Google is promoting the trespassing of private property. That would make their case a lot more valid.

[drarkanex]

This suit is frivolous. For one, as a test, I contacted Google to have my house removed from street view. They immediately complied with my request very quickly. I think the frivolous party in PA should have requested their images taken off street view first before making a spectacle of themselves. ha ha

[drarkanex]

Also, Google has a point being that satellite imagery has gotten so good now that if anyone cares about the "Borings" in PA that all it takes is a quick snap snap with thermal imaging to find out what these people are REALLY doing.

I think the last time I heard through the grapevine that in the late 90's, the government was able to read the date on a dime so now a days, who knows.

[jCounsel]

I see that Google's position is:

"Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the Borings' complaint ...

In that case, I would ask Google to post pictures of themselves and their homes.......

Perhaps I'll see what Yahoo has to say. I am using Yahoo until I hear otherwise...

[Archus]

Seriously? Hey ask a Google employee what their address is. I'm sure you can find pics of their houses, them, their dogs, etc. But yeah, you use yahoo. I'm sure they'll keep your info as safe as they kept Palin's.

[atomniy]

Archus ;) You got it right mate)

[jjacobus]

"..that finding their home clearly visible on Google's Street View caused them "mental suffering" and diluted their home value..." Why? Because now everyone can see what a piece of crap home they have?

[TV James]

Can I sue these homeowners for my mental anguish at having to read about how stupid they are.

[preacherx]

I agree that pictures can be taken from any 'public' road, with the exception of peoples faces (which is protected by other laws). Once someone enters upon a 'private' road they are trespassing. Same scenario if they have to jump a fence to shoot a picture in your backyard - it is trespassing. If something (e.g. building) on a private road is viewable from a public road, then it should be legal to photograph that subject from that public road (without illegally entering upon the private road to do so). Just my $0.02.

[uglo]

It's funny that you won't find a street view of Bill Gates or Donald Trump's homes. If you are extremely well heeled you can stay anonymous wherever you want.

[gerrrg]

You know, if you followed my link in my previous posting, you would have seen a link to a satellite image of Bill Gate's house: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/77/view/?service=1

Apparently no one pays attention.

[massfat]

People like you cause problems like this.

[Mapper99]

Original Google Street View Images here:

http://streetviewgallery.corank.com/tech/story/couple-Sues-Google-Over-Street-View

[basraw]

They need a new SIGN.

PRIVATE ROAD. TRESPASSERS SHOT ON THE SPOT.

[pj-mckay]

Guess it depends where you live and how dumb the homeowners are. We have the right to roam anywhere in Scotland with the proviso that we do it responsibly and without encroaching on others. To suggest that I shoot someone, or be shot, is just STUPID. In a land that was taken from indiginous Indians only a hundred years or so ago I find that, frankly, disgusting but no more so than the muppets who would have had their mental anguish saved by 25,000 dollars. It's a sad indictment on society when our anguish is saved by cash OR we shoot folk because we are so selfish ("it's mine and nobody else can have a piece"). You stay there, and I'll stay where Ilive. I feel safer already,

[sinofguns]

Trespassers shot? You must have been a spoiled, only child. Sucks to be you

[wkhai]

ROTFL ... i read this as:

PRIVATE ROAD. TRESPASSERS (google's photographers) SHOT (past-tense of shoot, using a camera) ON THE SPOT.

[aka_tripleB]

I don't know where Google took the pictures from. If it was from a public street, then there is no expectation of privacy. However, if Google took them from a private road, then people have every expectation of privacy. It would be no different than Google walking into people's houses without permission and taking pictures of your house. Trespassing is trespassing, plain and simple.

[basraw]

yeah they drove up the road even though drivers were instructed not to do that on private roads.

[Get_Bent]

"However, Google claims to be legally allowed to photograph on private roads, arguing that privacy no longer exists in this age of satellite and aerial imagery."

So this means it's okay if I walk on to Sergei Brin's and Larry Page's property whenever I feel like it and take pictures through their windows.

The Borings should have made it a criminal case: charge Google's driver with trespassing and charge Google with aiding and abetting.

[grayfrier]

Last time i checked Trespassing is still against the law no matter who you are they should go after Google for that may not win a big settlement but go after the photographers and the boss's behind it and i'll bet Google won't be driving on to private property anytime soon if they face jail time.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I do wonder how Google would feel if someone decided to drive onto the Google campus, start taking pictures of all the access roads, buildings, etc, then walk into the lobby and do the same, then post the pictures on a nice site where those images are then used for commercial purposes.

I don't really see a difference between that and a Google camera car ignoring a marked private road, then posting the pictures on their service which gains revenue through selling commercial advertising.

[parkhoon]

I can understand how it could feel for trespassing, and stuff. But those two stupid couples trying to make some free money, huh? To me, looks like those two were mentally ill even before google street view. What a joke.

[professionaladventurer]

You can't shoot trespassers even with a sign that says so. What I did on a large property I own is put up a bunch of signs on the private road saying: " LIVE FIRE TRAINING AREA, DO NOT ENTER!!!" "WARNING DEATH MAY RESULT FROM UNANNOUNCED VISITS DUE TO LIVE WEAPONS TRAINING"

The house in question is such a pile!

[cool2bme]

Do you actually believe there is a no privacy act in the first place ? It is only for the public but since satellites were invented that probably was the first thing the government did , view everyone and anyone to their interest. So why not let the public have the same rights ? For one thing there wouldn't be much crime done . I think most of these people who are blah blah blah privacy have something to hide which probably isn't legal . Criminals are the ones that benefit from all this privacy crap . I think its time for the public to fight to put the REAL crimanls behind bars without any lesser time crap to , do the crime , do the WHOLE time and with this type of teleology it can be done . With today times I think this is needed . Sure if you were to ask me this 30 years ago ? I would be against it but not today times . People need to weight the good from the bad and I think it would do more good than bad ....