Comments on: Google finds no privacy on private roads

Residents in Northern California are complaining that drivers hired to collect the images for Google's Street View are disregarding private property signs and driving up private roads.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Google's Top Ten goal in buisiness located at:

http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

#6: You can make money without doing evil.

Now rationalize that with their own comments:

"nothing you do ever goes away and nothing you do ever escapes notice."

"There isn't any privacy, get over it."

"complete privacy does not exist"

Really casts a new light on Google's intentions, doesn't it?

[gerrrg]

Stating the obvious is not equitable with a statement of policy. No matter how much you try, your information is already available.

Governments cannot hold most of your information private, except in certain conditions. If you're going to complain about the random possibility of your face showing up on Google's Street View, have you spent the time to scan all newspapers, websites and magazines to see if your photo has been used without your permission? A lot of people that complain about Google's privacy issues are hypocritical pontificates.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Gerrig:

I have no real issue with what they are doing, only that they have set in their very goals of the company not to do evil... and their blatant disregard of personal privacy in their exploits to make money by any means possible- yeah... it's the sort of thing that equates them with Big Oil in my opinion. But you have to give them credit- they are being honest about their goals for domination and qoncquest over individual rights.

[c|net Reader]

@gerrrg

One is not hypocritical for addressing a known violation of one's privacy without searching for unknown violations.

[gerrrg]

So, it's bad for Google to reject privacy (aka anonymity), but if I post on CNET, I'm supposed to use my real name?

Ah, the hypocrisy.

[The_Decider]

There is a huge difference between willingly signing up on a website and a company trespassing on private property.

The former is the person willingly giving up some form of privacy, although I bet that gerrrg is not your real name.

The latter is a company breaching privacy without permission.

If you see any hypocrisy or think Google is doing good you are hopeless.

[Lerianis]

Actually, The_Decider, outside of your home (and the exterior of your home counts as outside of your home).... you have no right to privacy. Even 'private roads' are no longer private if you allow relatives or neighbors to use said road without getting on their case about it.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Lerianis:

By that same argument, peeping toms are completely and perfectly justified. They are outside your home looking inside. But since they are outside, you have no right to expect privacy. If you don't close the curtains, then that is your fault.

Actually, when you think about it, there is nothing wrong with stepping right up to someone at the ATM and watching them enter their PIN, perhaps even with a vdieo camera. When they object, you can use the same argument- sorry, you're outside, you have no right to expect privacy. Doesn't matter that you are on private property. Go right ahead with that argument when the police arrive.

[dartesiag]

the fact on the issue of point whether cnet or google has an issue or argument over the issue is comical. the base problem is the privacy of individuals or the lack there of. if the request for privacy is not respected by google, cnet, or any other entity, even the government (terrorists not included), then what is next? should i expect a webcam in my bedroom/

[stevenmusil]

While I am not defending CNET's registration process, I think you will agree that you submitted your information voluntarily. CNET didn't go on to your property and take the information after you had already stated that you didn't want to share it.

[n3td3v]

If the government went through our streets taking snap shots there would be a public outcry, because Google does it nobody cares.

[Urza9814]

Yes. Because google isn't making us pay for it. Our government would be, in the form of taxes. Private companies get away with plenty of things the government never could.

[Freiheit13]

Umm, the government DOES do that. The majority of the satellites with high-resolution imaging looking down on us were put up there by our government. Perhaps there SHOULD be public outcry.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Urza9814:

Part of the problem is that Google is profiting from this. They are selling advertisements while displaying the content that they obtained by trespassing on private property. Now if they want to come up to my house and take pictures, I would expect them to pay for that right. I'm willing to negotiate. Go right ahead, Google. My rates are reasonable.

[JCPayne]

Google is right... Anything that you can from a public road is fair game... Don't like it... Errect a baracade / shrubs. Close your curtains, or take the private road into the house with you. And it you don't want to be seen on Streetview go walk down the street with a mask...

[ferricoxide]

Except that these aren't PUBLIC roads. They are PRIVATE roads. In many cases, they are roads that are posted with "no trespassing" (or similar signs). However, Google's drivers are going down them, snapping pictures, any way.

[Rythan]

You need to read the article. It was *not* a public road. It was private property and they were trespassing. There were two No Trespassing signs that the driver ignored.

[JCPayne]

This is all nothing new... Local U.S. media has done this for years...

They regularly walk up to a "suspects" house knock on the door, then point the camera at the house and say "Do you have any comments concerning the allegations." At which time they usually show somebody slamming the door. Or when someone gets hauled into court they take photos of that person in the courtroom or walking away from the court etc... This has all been done before. Even during the weather segments on US TV. They show various scenes around the two or city concerning the weather often times containing people's faces and so on... These "Privacy" nutcases need to grow up and get over it.

[c|net Reader]

Ad hominem attacks aren't necessary. Really.

For the media to use a recognizable picture of a person, they are supposed to get a signed release from that person. I don't know whether the same is true of private property, but it should be.

I'm sure the new facebook generation thinks nothing of granting the world complete access to their lives, but I like privacy. What my family and I do is not your business unless I make it so.

[JCPayne]

Besides if you want to see another invasive policy towards people's "privacy" log into your city/towns website... Usually you can find it at:

http://www.ci.(your city name).(your two-letter state code).us/ "

Goto your city/town assesor's website... Look for the database. Enter your house address and in most cases your city will have a picture of your house/property. The title of the land listed and other personal info about how much your property is worth and possibly how much you paid... Get over the personal information or "Privacy" non-sense. It doesn't exist anymore....

[badasscat]

Are you not understanding that these are private roads? We're not talking about houses on public streets here. This is private property, and Google is trespassing.

Every town and county everywhere that I know of in the United States has trespassing laws. You are not allowed on my property unless I say you are, unless you are an agent of the town or county which has duties in assessing the value of the land/enforcing the law/etc. That does not apply to private companies or individuals.

Whatever Google can see from public roads is fair game. But private roads are quite literally (and legally) off limits to them. I can't see what possible argument they could make on this that will actually hold up in court. Why else would they be removing these images if they feel like they don't have to? They're seeing how far they can push it, but they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Would you be okay with Google then sending people into high rise private condo buildings to take pictures of every front door? That's what they are doing here. If it was taking pictures from a public street, that's one thing, but going onto private land for commercial purposes is illegal.

[oneoclock]

I don't understand the argument "doesn't exist anymore" at all. By the same argument you could defend a non-elected government in the US, say if the military was to do a coup, unlikely but if it did happen you could simply justify it by saying "democracy doesn't exist anymore, get over it".

I am saying if it doesn't exist anymore, then it is time for every citizen to speak up and make sure laws are changed in favour of citizens not corporations.

[oneoclock]

One more thing ... a cousin of mine is a professional photographer and he sells many of his photos to Getty Images, the company which supplies most of the world's news services with photos. Now, you would imagine that Getty know the laws and regulations regarding photos a little better than Google does simply because Getty have been doing this and nothing else for ages. Anyway, Getty will not buy and publish any photos of buildings unless the owner of the building has signed a release, they will also not buy and publish any photos in which a persons face is recognisable without the person having signed a release. My cousin says this is the industry standard for professional photographers.

Google should comply with this standard, they can pictures all they want whenever they want but if they want to publish them, then they should have written permission from the owners of buildings or persons appearing in the photo.

[Renegade Knight]

Getty Policy should not be confused with the law. They are implementing a Cover Your Butt policy (CYA) with the disclaimers, waivers and releases.

Releases help prevent problems. Problems are expensive. They are not however the law.

[nedim_s]

Now we all take cameras, and head to google campus, and google buildings and start taking pohotos! And publish it online! :D Let them see what privacy is! :D (+ take phothos of them working in office) :D

[Vegaman_Dan]

Google says there is no such thing as privacy, so yes... there should be zero reason why Google will prevent people from driving onto the Google campus, getting out of their cars, walking right past the reception desk and security to start taking pictures inside the buildings at offices, hallways, etc. So what if it is private property- that no longer applies per Google.

[nedim_s]

Now we all take cameras, and head to google campus, and google buildings and start taking pohotos! And publish it online! :D Let them see what privacy is! :D (+ take phothos of them working in office) :D

[SJ2571]

In Australia a photo of just about every house is available at www.rpdata.com.au (for a fee), along with the price paid, buyer name, etc. Google has less info on the house photos than RPData.

[k2dave]

Can anyone help out on the legal aspect of private roads. Are we not suppose to use them, or are they privately owned public easements? Where would the No Trespassing sign have to be placed to indicate don't drive on this road, as opposed to don't trespass on the private property along the road?

Thanks

[Renegade Knight]

It depends. The ones I've seen were build to a lesser standard that if they were public. The developer is on the hook to maintain the road. He passes that on to the ownes as he sells off the land he deveoped. The end result is that the road is public for access and private for maintanence.

I'm sure that some roads built for private purposes to no public standard are private property as we normally think of it. Those won't be named via the local mapping office.

[Renegade Knight]

In my state it works like this.
Public Road = Green Sign
Privately maintained road (but still publicly accessable) = Blue Sign
Private Road = Make your own sign that doesn't look like a green or blue one.

A lot of the folks with blue signed roads will call the road dept. and say "why won't you come fix our road?" Then they want to make their road a Green signed one but the shortcuts the developer took often get in the way. After all if the deveoper was willing to do it right, it would have been public to begin with.

[i_am_still_wade]

Note to the residents who live on these streets. "Private" on the street sign DOES NOT MEAN PRIVATE PROPERTY! Let me repeat, "Private" on the street sign does not mean private property. "Private" on the street sign means privately maintained. If you want to keep your community private, you must enact a gate. Otherwise, anyone can drive on that road and anyone can take pictures from the road.

That is nothing new. That is as old as the private eyes. Google is just making it available publicly. But they are doing nothing wrong or immoral.

Furthermore, by law, it is not trespassing if you are going to the front door even if there is a "no trespassing" or "private property" sign. Also, "no soliciting" means no selling. But if you are not selling anything, you have a right to be there.

We need to clear up this confusion because ignorance is far too common in this country.

[Vegaman_Dan]

The ignorance must be shared by you however inadvertantly as the laws change from place to place. What you have stated may be legal in your area, but does not apply globally.

You're right. There is a lot of ignorance on this subject.

[thirdparty100]

wade,your wrong,if you have a sign that says no trespassing,and someone's trespasses,you may protect property with deadly force.that's called the castle law.one is required by law to post sign's,that may state,will shoot trespassers.obvious it has to be private property,and just a private road.private roads are indeed maintained by those home owners.someone going up to one's front door is a risk everyday,no one person has no right to even ring your bell,that's the law.only a officer of law can attempt this,he or she may still be at danger,one must have a warrant to go to one's property for anything due to a non- neighborly activity,defined by the home owner.you lose,retard.

[smilin:)]

"Do no evil" my butt. When is the public going to wake up about this company?

[Renegade Knight]

Some private roads are built for public access and to a public standard and all "Private" on them means is that it's not the public paying to maintaining the roads. Often developers get to use a lesser standard to build such a road at less cost. Then they stick the buyers of property on the road wtih the cost of maintaining their quasi public quasi private road.

[biskethed]

I lived in Humboldt county for about 15 years. It is a large Marijuana growing area, and a lot of the farmers for obvious reasons very jealously protect their private land. The cameraman is lucky he didnt get shot.

[umbrae]

It takes close to 6 months to get removed too. Obviously a lot of people are asking to have their houses removed. This was a horrible mistake by Google. They should have charged businesses to have them available of Street View and avoided residential area. Street View serves no purpose in residential areas unless you are a thief or pedophile.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Satellite images are totally different from trespassing. First of all at least in the US you only own what's above you to I think it 200 feet. Everything over that is not yours. Second the satellites don't come driving down your property. Google is like all other greedy evil corporations they think they can do what they want and as long as they have the money to buy off the blood sucking parasites in office they will get away with it. Until American's do something about the bloodsuckers in office nothing will change. We have the power but apparently 99% of American's are impotent fools.

[Gromit801]

So, by Google's own reasoning, any of us can walk into their corporate headquarters, take all the photo's we want, in any office we want, and Google has no legal recourse.

So Google, get over it, there is no privacy.