mikkl666 writes "A couple from Pittsburgh has sued Google because a photo of their house appeared on Google Street View. They are demanding in excess of $25,000 to make up for the 'mental suffering' and the diminished value of their home. Their street is apparently marked with a 'Private Road' sign, and they claim that putting a photo of their property online is an 'intentional and/or grossly reckless invasion' of their privacy. Google, on the other hand, claims that this lawsuit is pointless since anyone can ask them to have pictures removed without legal action. We've previously discussed some of the privacy concerns surrounding Street View."
I just love it when people grab any occasion to try to sue as much money as they can from large (and rich) companies, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. A chance these companies also have dozens of lawyers for whenever that happens.
I just love it when people grab any occasion to try to sue as much money as they can from large (and rich) companies, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.
And I just love it when people make inflammatory, knee-jerk statements (and then get modded as "insightful" by those similarly inclined) suggesting that a lawuit of $25K is the same as as much as they can, then go on to imply that the basis for that suit was a large (and rich) compan[y].
Look, their residence was on a private road. Chances are if you value
Telling people that there is no damage because you can ask for something to be removed is silly IMO, that doesn't cover the time it was up until the request was followed and I dislike the idea of opt-out in general, asking someone for permission should happen BEFORE acting, not just acting and telling people they have to come to you to revoke their permission.
First, it appears that no attempt to request the images be removed was made.
Second, doing shit like this only makes it worse [wikipedia.org]. If there really was any concern over privacy then this is by far the worst thing you could do to protect it.
Third, I would love so hear how taking pictures of a property devalues it. At best you can charge them with trespassing since it was private property - a criminal charge which would probably be more effective at changing Google's policies than a civil suit - but you can't get any cash out of a criminal charge.
In other words, this has all the seemings of someone who decided to look up their own house on Street View and thought "free money!" =Smidge=
Third, I would love so hear how taking pictures of a property devalues it.
I'd like to hear it too. Because apparently Google took pictures of MY house late last year, taking a picture of my old garage door with its missing window pane, and a big pile of leaves on the driveway. If they don't read my mind and update the picture the moment I think there's a problem with it, maybe I should sue?
Boom. End of sentence. I would say there is no expectation of privacy from outer space or from the street. It's not reasonable.
As for "Mental Anguish", I suffer a lot of mental anguish every day that I'm in traffic. Who do I sue? And only $25K for mental anguish. Either they didn't have a lot of anguish or they don't have a lot of mental.
As for the diminished value of their house, it sounds like they're looking for Google to reimburse them for the downturn in the market that has cut housing values from 1/4 to 3/4's (depending on where you live).
Overall, this is the kind of lawsuit that makes you think the world is overpopulated. On so many levels.
asking someone for permission should happen BEFORE acting
Yeah, that is just so feasible when what you're doing is taking pictures of EVERY SINGLE BUILDING AND HOUSE IN A LARGE CITY. Well maybe not every single one, but you get my point..
My generation has really taken to heart the old adage "It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission". Just another symptom of our society's growing sense of entitlement and disrespect of others' personal property and privacy.
What about all of us that want to be on Google maps? I thought it was cute that our street was on Google maps. There is nothing invasive about taking a picture of your house. Unless, they stick a camera in your window or hope a fence then most persons will have no problem with someone just taking a picture of their house.
I think the sticking picture of this incident was that in order to take a picture they had to go past a sign that said "Private Property" which is trespass
Photography in the US is permitted in public places, and does not require permission in advance. From The Photographer's Bill of Rights [krages.com]:
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.
Google is going above and beyond by offering to remove any objected photos, at their expense, and without the need to raise legal action.
Roads are considered public places. I don't know whether roads marked as private are considered public or not (it takes more than the posting of a sign to make something so), this probably depends on the municipality, and whether or not the road itself is actually private property (and as such they'd have to pay themselves for plowing and other maintenance). In that case, Google's mistake might have simply for their driver to have failed to notice the sign labeling it as private. In such a case, I think you'd have to prove Google knowingly and willingly chose to act in the face of knowledge that what they did was incorrect. Because this is such an unusual circumstance (very very few roads are private which don't have some sort of gate on the end) that the burden should be on the owners to protect themselves from unwitting violation of their atypical case.
Regardless, these people are exposing themselves to a serious Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] by trying to make such a public issue of the complaint. If instead they had emailed Google and requested the removal, Google would have quietly complied, and no one would have even noticed. Guaranteed, if they see other people looking at their home as a way to devalue it (which I cannot see), then any publicity they generate for themselves will be far more damaging than the mere existence of an image mixed in among millions of others.
Here's what makes this case different than the other StreetView suits... the Google van wasn't supposed to be on this road in the first place. A private road means that the owners of the road take no government funding or care for it, and therefore get to decide who they'll allow on it. Google wasn't wanted, so there's the problem.
Unless the street is posted "No trespassing" then I don't see how it makes much difference whether its a public or private street. Under PA law (ob. IANAL) if it isn't posted, you'uns can go there. By the way, my guess is that these people moved to Pittsburgh from out of state. PA folks aren't very lawsuit-happy in general.
I'm no lawyer either, but what if there is a 'no trespass' sign that is obscured by foliage? Lots of street signs are hidden or covered by leaves during the summer, and last I checked the Google StreetView photos are taken during the summer months. I've a sneaking suspicion the lawbooks don't say what happens then. That's a lawyer bonanza, though not much good for the family or Google.
Google never ceases to teach me new things. I guess it's okay to do impolite things as long as I remind the victim that they could have asked me to stop at any time.
How long until google is indexing my underwear drawer?
I dunno it seems like a case of bad judgment on the driver of the mapping vehicle. If you look at the pictures it seems like they drove right up to their garage, taking pictures the whole time.
But, there doesn't seem to be any "private road" labeling on the map nor was their any sign visible when I followed the street via Streetview to their house (though they did delete the offending pictures, so maybe the sign was there?)
Regardless though, I would expect that the drivers of these vehicles would know better then to keep the pictures they took of a property while parked in front of a garage.
IANAL, however it seems like this should come down a question of visibility. Is the house visible from the street? Then it seems that publishing a photo that includes the house shouldn't be a problem. It would be different if it were a close-up photo of the house, or one looking inside it, but if it's just the same view available to a passer-by, what's the harm? My only question is whether the 'Private Road' sign could cause problems. What's a 'private road?' Do the residents pave it and light it, or is it really a public road maintained by the municipality with a sign that discourages visitors?
This reminds me a bit of companies that place security guards to stop people from photographing their buildings. My reaction has always been that you shouldn't put a building in a public place if you don't want it to be photographed.
What must your mental state be if a picture of your house appearing on the internet can cause you "mental anguish"? They either must have a very easy life to make this small matter appear relatively large, or they must be teetering on the brink of the abyss for something this small to be a threat.
Either way, they must have a very strange life
oh, yeah... I guess they could be looking to make a quick buck.
As I was reading the summary and comments (article too!), I had envisioned a sprawling mansion with swimming pools and gates that keep out the paparazzi and keep in the polo horses.
The photo presented looks like an opening shot from "Flip This House"
Whenever a company operates from "consent by omission" (by not getting permission first, as in "opt in" they are opening themselves up for such questions.
Frankly, I dislike a lot of what Google is doing with this feature. There is a big difference between showing street level photos of commercial areas and residential areas. I think Google has crossed that line here.
If Google operated on an "opt in" basis they'd be using those photos with permission and thus, be immune from lawsuits.
Frankly, Google is acting more like Microsoft and less like Google of 4-5 years ago every day...
I guess these people don't know i can goto their local clerk and get their name and assessed value too. Or a host of other public or easily purchased record sources are available.
Views from the *street* are public. Don't like it, move further back from the road and put up trees. ( and put a cover over your property or move underground since satellite images are public too, since i could see that same view from the street, with a REALLY large ladder. )
I used to live at the end of a dead end road, and my roommate (whom was purchasing the home) actually owned 1/2 of the road from a telephone pole back to the fence/property line.
We had lots of signs up stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY" "NO TRESPASSING" "Violators will be shot, survivors will be shot again." On a few occasions right after we moved in, we had police patrols in our neighborhood (due to "gang" activity, but that's another story) and they would turn around in our driveway.
The cops were cool, and eventually let us know those signs didn't mean much, unless we actually owned the road, luckily we had the paperwork showing property lines. After that the cops wouldn't (couldn't?) use the very end of the road to turn around in, unless we had personally talked to that officer and gave him our permission. Heck, we let them use our property to conduct a few stake outs too.
So if these people live on a "Private" road, they better be ready to prove they own that land. If not, I say Google had every right to take some pictures.
I don't see how their home should suffer from "diminished value". Their home is going to be worth *more* if anything (more visibility = more famous = more value).
It might be more of a subjective metric for "value." Their names are "Aaron and Christine Boring" (I glanced at TFA, so sue me), so more visibility = more exciting place to live = not boring.
Especially after this lawsuit, they'll have to get the hell out of there to live up to their name.
Presumably they see some of the value in their house being in the fact that it is on a "private" road. Google's images demonstrate how little that is really worth, thus lowering the value of their property.
Blah, have they even looked at street view? The images obtained are a joke. Unless the vehicle drive right up within 15 ft of something the images are grossly unfocused beyond 15 ft.
I don't know about the legal status of a "private road" but if I'm on public property, I can take a picture of your house as long as it can be seen from public property. It's not against the law. The only things that are exempt from this are government and military locations.
Who owns what in "road law" in most jurisdictions is fairly complicated. A so called "private road" could be anything from an abandoned public road to a road that was built by the landowner himself or another adjoining land owner who has given that landowner an easement.
Even if the road itself is totally owned by the landowner, whether they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from photographs on that road is a question that is probably undecided or unclear. Even if the answer is yes, the issue of damages is probably laughable. A generic photo of a house on a road? I'd give them $100. If the photo had a picture of them "doing it" in the window, maybe $25,000 would be justifiable.
If you want to read more, check out this link: The Pennsylvania Legislatorâ€(TM)s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006), Road Law Basics Chapter: http://tinyurl.com/6hvvnk
In Texas a private road is defined as one maintained privately, as opposed to a public road that is maintained by a government (municipal, county, state, or federal). Usually the residents who use the road share the responsibility to maintain it.
I assume in Pennsylvania it's the same. If you don't want people driving on a road, you need to mark it as such. Put a gate, or a sign forbidding unauthorized access.
Remember Google did this intentionally to ruin this specific family's privacy. Or at least these people say Google did it intentionally. What Google should do is remove the house, but in it's place put an ad.
If you look at Google maps [google.com], you can see quite clearly that their house is at the end of a private road. The Google road crew drove onto private property, continuing to take high resolution photographs before turning round and going back the way they came.
A road sign clearly indicated that this was a private road. Maybe Google's road crew didn't understand English, took a wrong turning, or their maps were out of date. Since they took photographs every 10 metres or so, having a photograph of their property is not going to affect its value by any significant amount.
This really does amount to trespass and invasion of privacy. Any individual is free to walk the streets of their neighborhood and take photographs, so long as they don't enter private property. But as soon as they wander into their neighbors driveways and gardens, neighbors would be justified in calling the Police, and getting them to be given a warning or to be arrested.
If you look at Google maps, you can see quite clearly that their house is at the end of a private road.
No. I looked at Google maps, and all I can see quite clearly is that the house is at the end of a road. There is no indication that it's private at all.
A road sign clearly indicated that this was a private road.
Really? I couldn't see that sign from the link you provided.
This really does amount to trespass and invasion of privacy.
You haven't proven that, but assuming that there is a sign, and the mappers were guilty of tresspassing, how the hell do you explain the absurd charges?
If this really was about tresspassing, you'd think that the property owners would have sued for that, instead of this "mental anguish" and "reduced property value" bullshit.
After seeing the map, I think the owners have a point -- the private road is essentially their driveway, and they have a line of trees screening their house from outside view. These people want privacy, and Google violated it. I don't know if it's worth $25,000, but on top of the incident where the Google Street View van drove onto a military base in contravention of Google's rules, I think this is a sign that the people taking the pictures are inadequately trained and lack common sense.
Allegheny County already put all this information online, years ago.
Also I'm not sure how you can "clearly see" it's a private road. Since Google posted detailed pictures of the area you would think we could see this "private road" sign somewhere, no? I just used street view to pan around and all I could find was a single wooden post with "Oakridge Ln" painted on it (where it meets Reis Run Road.) In fact you can still follow Oakridge all the way up to their house before google says "This image is no longer available" and still see no posted sign.
The people claim Allegheny County took their picture from a public road which, judging by the picture, is the same road Google was on.
Also how's this for invasion of privacy: They bought their 1 bedroom house in 2006 for $163,000 and it sits on 1.82 acres of land. It gets a D+ rating. It has no AC, 1 bathroom, and 984 sq. ft. of living area.
That's all available on Allegheny County's assessment website [allegheny.pa.us]. Along with a nice picture.
My guess is they saw this on Google, ran to Home Depot for a private road sign, and decided to cash in.
The UK has similar "Right to Roam" legislation which applies to many pathways and scenic areas. It's something to consider when buying a house or even office space in a business park. You find out that the local residents use your driveway or car-park as a short cut to the local supermarket because 1800 years, a Roman goat-herder went to court to maintain a right-of-way between the town market and the local pasture.
Remember last month when a Danish journalist was talking on his cell phone and wandered into a woman's lawn? She came after him with a gun [cnn.com] of all things!
I did a project more than a decade ago with EMTs and other first responders about vehicle INS systems ( before GPS became ubiquitous ). The drivers jokingly ( or maybe not ) noted that the eventual real effect of people that had overgrown vegitation, concealed drives, locked gates, non-existent or faded curb numbers, missing or angled house numbers and unlit or burned out porch lights was that response time effectively doubles or triples with a corresponding effect on medical survival rates. As society becomes more dependent of spatial technologies like StreetView, a similar counter-survival friction will occur as Fedex, Dominos, and EMTs are delayed by uncertain spots in their data. So that EMT's opinion was that eventually these 'hiding' people would be selected against and be left in the shallow end of the gene pool.
You have no expectation of privacy with regard to Google Street View photographs, or any other "shutterbug" snapping pictures on your street, provided the photos were taken from public property, and were not done in such a way as to grossly invade your space (telephoto lenses into your bathroom window, for example).
Here's a good article that points to guidelines from people who go to court to defend their members' rights to do what is in their rights (Google's Street View team would be wise to join up):
From what I understand about the equipment and methods in use by the Google Street View project, I wouldn't expect them to be in violation of the "zoom lenses" provisions in any "invasion" statute in these states.
I'm sorry, but you are spectacularly missing my point.
I do have an expectation of privacy in my own home. This expectation is born of common courtesy and acceptable polite behaviour. Moreover, I claim that I am far from the only person with such a view: if you walked along a street obviously going up to people's windows and taking detailed photographs of the inside of their home, do you not think a substantial number of them would also have a problem with this behaviour? The fact that Google is doing this
One of the things that Google needs to change is the behavior, "we do first, and you can remove later." It sort of reminds me of the idea, "hey I will walk along the neighborhood and attempt to open all doors and see which ones are unlocked. Of course if you tell me after the fact then I will not do it again later on."
So why does Google do this? Simple, its their entire business model. Think about. Imagine if Google had to get the OK from everybody before submitting pictures, web search, and book contents. T
I'm not usually a proponent of psychoactive drugs, but when objections to Google Street View turn into a geo political rant and ideological spleen venting about power politics in a war zone, then I think a Valium is definitely called for.
And there is no equivalent to remove your house from their satellite stuff if you so desire.
Not unless you are, say, the US Government, that is. Apparently their right to privacy extends to not having photographs of their facilities publicly available.
There should be a constitutional rule that says no government or corporate body may ever have a right not universally available to an individual citizen. If something is important enough for the guys with power and money to protect, it's important enough to protect it for everyone else, too.
Right, but they ask you that as a way to find out if you have any ideas that may make you useful to them as a new hire - to see if you think beyond the box or beyond "make search better". As someone who has to do some amount of interviewing for a company of 60,000 people - I can tell you that is the type of question I may ask folks. But if I thought you had a good idea on something, I could take it to my manager, who could take it to their manager, who could send it to the "guy in charge of that". Any step
lol.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I just love it when people grab any occasion to try to sue as much money as they can from large (and rich) companies, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. A chance these companies also have dozens of lawyers for whenever that happens.
Opt out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I just love it when people make inflammatory, knee-jerk statements (and then get modded as "insightful" by those similarly inclined) suggesting that a lawuit of $25K is the same as as much as they can, then go on to imply that the basis for that suit was a large (and rich) compan[y].
Look, their residence was on a private road. Chances are if you value
I don't like that defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't like that defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, doing shit like this only makes it worse [wikipedia.org]. If there really was any concern over privacy then this is by far the worst thing you could do to protect it.
Third, I would love so hear how taking pictures of a property devalues it. At best you can charge them with trespassing since it was private property - a criminal charge which would probably be more effective at changing Google's policies than a civil suit - but you can't get any cash out of a criminal charge.
In other words, this has all the seemings of someone who decided to look up their own house on Street View and thought "free money!"
=Smidge=
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to hear it too. Because apparently Google took pictures of MY house late last year, taking a picture of my old garage door with its missing window pane, and a big pile of leaves on the driveway. If they don't read my mind and update the picture the moment I think there's a problem with it, maybe I should sue?
Re:I don't like that defense (Score:5, Insightful)
"There is no damage".
Boom. End of sentence. I would say there is no expectation of privacy from outer space or from the street. It's not reasonable.
As for "Mental Anguish", I suffer a lot of mental anguish every day that I'm in traffic. Who do I sue? And only $25K for mental anguish. Either they didn't have a lot of anguish or they don't have a lot of mental.
As for the diminished value of their house, it sounds like they're looking for Google to reimburse them for the downturn in the market that has cut housing values from 1/4 to 3/4's (depending on where you live).
Overall, this is the kind of lawsuit that makes you think the world is overpopulated. On so many levels.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
asking someone for permission should happen BEFORE acting
Yeah, that is just so feasible when what you're doing is taking pictures of EVERY SINGLE BUILDING AND HOUSE IN A LARGE CITY. Well maybe not every single one, but you get my point..
Re:I don't like that defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about all of us that want to be on Google maps? I thought it was cute that our street was on Google maps. There is nothing invasive about taking a picture of your house. Unless, they stick a camera in your window or hope a fence then most persons will have no problem with someone just taking a picture of their house.
I think the sticking picture of this incident was that in order to take a picture they had to go past a sign that said "Private Property" which is trespass
Re:I don't like that defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Roads are considered public places. I don't know whether roads marked as private are considered public or not (it takes more than the posting of a sign to make something so), this probably depends on the municipality, and whether or not the road itself is actually private property (and as such they'd have to pay themselves for plowing and other maintenance). In that case, Google's mistake might have simply for their driver to have failed to notice the sign labeling it as private. In such a case, I think you'd have to prove Google knowingly and willingly chose to act in the face of knowledge that what they did was incorrect. Because this is such an unusual circumstance (very very few roads are private which don't have some sort of gate on the end) that the burden should be on the owners to protect themselves from unwitting violation of their atypical case.
Regardless, these people are exposing themselves to a serious Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] by trying to make such a public issue of the complaint. If instead they had emailed Google and requested the removal, Google would have quietly complied, and no one would have even noticed. Guaranteed, if they see other people looking at their home as a way to devalue it (which I cannot see), then any publicity they generate for themselves will be far more damaging than the mere existence of an image mixed in among millions of others.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't like that defense (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Don't go there. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't go there. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you google! (Score:3, Insightful)
How long until google is indexing my underwear drawer?
Who's fault is it? (Score:4, Informative)
It also seems like provider of the maps is also at fault, if you follow along on Google maps you can see that the street appears to extend all the way to their garage [google.com].
But, there doesn't seem to be any "private road" labeling on the map nor was their any sign visible when I followed the street via Streetview to their house (though they did delete the offending pictures, so maybe the sign was there?)
Regardless though, I would expect that the drivers of these vehicles would know better then to keep the pictures they took of a property while parked in front of a garage.
It comes down to visibility (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, however it seems like this should come down a question of visibility. Is the house visible from the street? Then it seems that publishing a photo that includes the house shouldn't be a problem. It would be different if it were a close-up photo of the house, or one looking inside it, but if it's just the same view available to a passer-by, what's the harm? My only question is whether the 'Private Road' sign could cause problems. What's a 'private road?' Do the residents pave it and light it, or is it really a public road maintained by the municipality with a sign that discourages visitors?
This reminds me a bit of companies that place security guards to stop people from photographing their buildings. My reaction has always been that you shouldn't put a building in a public place if you don't want it to be photographed.
Mental Anguish? (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, they must have a very strange life
oh, yeah... I guess they could be looking to make a quick buck.
They Should Sue The County Too (Score:5, Informative)
http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Image.asp?CurrBloLot=0823E00136000000&Street=Oakridge [allegheny.pa.us]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The photo presented looks like an opening shot from "Flip This House"
I think I can hear banjos in the background...
This is the consequence of "opt out" systems (Score:3, Interesting)
Whenever a company operates from "consent by omission" (by not getting permission first, as in "opt in" they are opening themselves up for such questions.
Frankly, I dislike a lot of what Google is doing with this feature. There is a big difference between showing street level photos of commercial areas and residential areas. I think Google has crossed that line here.
If Google operated on an "opt in" basis they'd be using those photos with permission and thus, be immune from lawsuits.
Frankly, Google is acting more like Microsoft and less like Google of 4-5 years ago every day...
Public Records (Score:3, Insightful)
Views from the *street* are public. Don't like it, move further back from the road and put up trees. ( and put a cover over your property or move underground since satellite images are public too, since i could see that same view from the street, with a REALLY large ladder. )
"Private" Road doesn't always mean "No Trespass... (Score:4, Interesting)
We had lots of signs up stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY" "NO TRESPASSING" "Violators will be shot, survivors will be shot again." On a few occasions right after we moved in, we had police patrols in our neighborhood (due to "gang" activity, but that's another story) and they would turn around in our driveway.
The cops were cool, and eventually let us know those signs didn't mean much, unless we actually owned the road, luckily we had the paperwork showing property lines. After that the cops wouldn't (couldn't?) use the very end of the road to turn around in, unless we had personally talked to that officer and gave him our permission. Heck, we let them use our property to conduct a few stake outs too.
So if these people live on a "Private" road, they better be ready to prove they own that land. If not, I say Google had every right to take some pictures.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Especially after this lawsuit, they'll have to get the hell out of there to live up to their name.
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank goodness for that, I thought it might be a problem.
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the road itself is totally owned by the landowner, whether they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from photographs on that road is a question that is probably undecided or unclear. Even if the answer is yes, the issue of damages is probably laughable. A generic photo of a house on a road? I'd give them $100. If the photo had a picture of them "doing it" in the window, maybe $25,000 would be justifiable.
If you want to read more, check out this link: The Pennsylvania Legislatorâ€(TM)s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006), Road Law Basics Chapter: http://tinyurl.com/6hvvnk
Parent
Private Roads (Score:4, Informative)
I assume in Pennsylvania it's the same. If you don't want people driving on a road, you need to mark it as such. Put a gate, or a sign forbidding unauthorized access.
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Insightful)
~Dan
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Informative)
A road sign clearly indicated that this was a private road. Maybe Google's road crew didn't understand English, took a wrong turning, or their maps were out of date. Since they took photographs every 10 metres or so, having a photograph of their property is not going to affect its value by any significant amount.
This really does amount to trespass and invasion of privacy. Any individual is free to walk the streets of their neighborhood and take photographs, so long as they don't enter private property. But as soon as they wander into their neighbors driveways and gardens, neighbors would be justified in calling the Police, and getting them to be given a warning or to be arrested.
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Informative)
If this really was about tresspassing, you'd think that the property owners would have sued for that, instead of this "mental anguish" and "reduced property value" bullshit.
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Informative)
Allegheny County already put all this information online, years ago.
Also I'm not sure how you can "clearly see" it's a private road. Since Google posted detailed pictures of the area you would think we could see this "private road" sign somewhere, no? I just used street view to pan around and all I could find was a single wooden post with "Oakridge Ln" painted on it (where it meets Reis Run Road.) In fact you can still follow Oakridge all the way up to their house before google says "This image is no longer available" and still see no posted sign.
Here's another picture of their house:
http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Image.asp?CurrBloLot=0823E00136000000&Street=oakridge [allegheny.pa.us]
The people claim Allegheny County took their picture from a public road which, judging by the picture, is the same road Google was on.
Also how's this for invasion of privacy: They bought their 1 bedroom house in 2006 for $163,000 and it sits on 1.82 acres of land. It gets a D+ rating. It has no AC, 1 bathroom, and 984 sq. ft. of living area.
That's all available on Allegheny County's assessment website [allegheny.pa.us]. Along with a nice picture.
My guess is they saw this on Google, ran to Home Depot for a private road sign, and decided to cash in.
Parent
Re:Diminished Value? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Texas woman with gun threatens Dane on lawn (Score:3, Interesting)
Darwin Effect of 'Diminished Value' (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I warned them (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a good article that points to guidelines from people who go to court to defend their members' rights to do what is in their rights (Google's Street View team would be wise to join up):
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm [usatoday.com]
From what I understand about the equipment and methods in use by the Google Street View project, I wouldn't expect them to be in violation of the "zoom lenses" provisions in any "invasion" statute in these states.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you are spectacularly missing my point.
I do have an expectation of privacy in my own home. This expectation is born of common courtesy and acceptable polite behaviour. Moreover, I claim that I am far from the only person with such a view: if you walked along a street obviously going up to people's windows and taking detailed photographs of the inside of their home, do you not think a substantial number of them would also have a problem with this behaviour? The fact that Google is doing this
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It sort of reminds me of the idea, "hey I will walk along the neighborhood and attempt to open all doors and see which ones are unlocked. Of course if you tell me after the fact then I will not do it again later on."
So why does Google do this? Simple, its their entire business model. Think about. Imagine if Google had to get the OK from everybody before submitting pictures, web search, and book contents. T
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I warned them (Score:4, Insightful)
And there is no equivalent to remove your house from their satellite stuff if you so desire.
Not unless you are, say, the US Government, that is. Apparently their right to privacy extends to not having photographs of their facilities publicly available.
There should be a constitutional rule that says no government or corporate body may ever have a right not universally available to an individual citizen. If something is important enough for the guys with power and money to protect, it's important enough to protect it for everyone else, too.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)