Google Sued Over Privacy Invasion On Street View

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 warned them

[Metasquares]

I had the opportunity to speak with some people on the Maps team when I interviewed with Google and mentioned that they need to address the privacy issues of street view before someone sued them, whether it was technically illegal or not. They didn't listen, and I can't say I'm surprised by the result.

Re:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Why should they have listened to you?

Perhaps because he was right, and the alternative was continuing to live in denial of the idea that anything Google does could possibly be wrong? Just read Google's view of the subject:

Google, on the other hand, claims that this lawsuit is pointless since anyone can ask them to have pictures removed without legal action.

Sure, but I bet they wouldn't have volunteered any compensation or accepted any penalty in recognition of the fact that they did do something wrong.

Google have become far too big for their boots in recent years. They need to be taught the meaning of respecting people's privacy, and now they're a shareholder-driven comp

Re:I warned them

[csoto]

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):

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.

Re:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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:

[Sandbags]

Not only are their no laws preventing this, there are actually legal rulings stating exactly the opposite. Any part of your home, INCLUDING the interior, that can be viewed from a public location, or OTHER private property and persons admitted to that other private property, is your own responsibility to hide if you wish privacy from view. In some states, the use of magnification or zoom technology to take pictures "specifically" of internal spaces of your home (ie voyerism) may be illegal, but if I get s

Re:

[Voltageaav]

The real question is "Is the road actually all their property?". Apparently, this "Private Road" has a street sign and has several other houses on it which would be an indicator to me that it's public. Unless the peope sueing own all the land sirectly around the road and have it gated or clearly marked "No Trasspassing" where someone in a car could easily see it, I can't see how they have a case.

Re:

[SerpentMage]

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

Re:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Imagine if Google had to get the OK from everybody before submitting pictures, web search, and book contents. That would absolutely kill their revenue.

Yes, it probably would. But some things are reasonable and generally inoffensive, and some things are pretty clearly illegal and/or unethical. "It would spoil my business model" is never an excuse for doing the latter. If enforcing your right to privacy and mine happens to destroy a market for people who collect and resell personal data about us so other people can spam us with advertising we don't care about, that's just too bad.

Re:

[SerpentMage]

>Their "News service" is biased the same way - they'll run Hezbollah and Hamas "newspapers" but not western news organizations that catch those groups lying every day.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. I do critique Google, but I happen to like their news service. The reality with their news service is that they link EVERYBODY.

What I see in your posting is that you want to say is Google is anti-Bush and anti-conservative. Sorry, but you are reading too much into that.

Re:

[MrNaz]

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.

Re:I warned them

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:

[Aetuneo]

So, the government is able to levy taxes. Should every citizen be able to do that as well? It's also able to declare war upon another country, declare a state of emergency, and so on and so forth. Imagine what would happen if all of the idiots in the country were able to do that.

Re:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I could insult that reply in similarly vague terms, but just for kicks, I shall annihilate it point by point.

First this is a non-story legally and financially until we hear otherwise.

That doesn't mean it isn't of interest to the many people already discussing it on this forum.

If they believed they were doing something that wrong, they wouldn't have done it in the first place.

Yes, because corporations have never been known to do things that are unethical or even outright illegal just to make a quick buck. That's why there are so many happy Enron shareholders in the world today.

Their strategy of putting everything up and then removing things only when requested is the only privacy approach that is technically feasible.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure there's another possibility that's technically very easy to

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Dutch Gun]

No, that should read: One does not simply walk into Google...

Re:

[Metasquares]

They asked me how Google's services could be improved. It wasn't a demand, it was a suggestion, and one that seems to have turned out to be a good one.

Re:

[GIL_Dude]

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

Re:

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Were you interviewing for a position in their legal team? If not, I can completely understand why they didn't take legal advice from a non legal potential employee. Plus, its unlikely that the interviewer himself would be in any position to influence that kind of a decision.

Plus, you basically gave a group think answer to a question aimed at exploring your creativity.

lol..

[4D6963]

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?

[dnoyeb]

I don't like opt-out memberships. The ability for companies to get away with opt-out usually comes from legislation. Not simple company choice.

Re:

[fyoder]

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.

As much as they can? 25 grand? From Google? That's petty cash to them. I wonder how they arrived at such a strangely low figure. Perhaps they figured if they kept it low Google would simply cut them a cheque and tell them to piss off and stop bothering them.

Re:

[value_added]

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

I don't like that defense

[KDR_11k]

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.

Re:I don't like that defense

[Smidge204]

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=

Re:

[Megane]

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?

Re:

[iamhigh]

I can understand your point. Doing something and saying "but you can have it reversed at a later date" doesn't mean you are free and clear of doing the wrong thing in the first place. But...

Google has the option of removing the pictures... it is a courtesy. They are doing this as a service to the public with (IMHO) no ill will. So just ask for your pics to be removed and move on... really who would have found the pictures before they made all this stink? Only those that knew about where they lived,

Re:I don't like that defense

[tkrotchko]

It's more like

"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.

Re:

[timeOday]

It's more like: "There is no damage".

Yes. It was a mistake IMHO for google to use the weak argument that people can opt out. The stronger argument is: "the outside of your house is outside and it's none of your business if we photograph it." Letting people opt out is good PR but I doubt they're legally required to do so. As an amateur photographer the idea of having to get permission from every person who owns something that falls into one of my pictures is terrifying - and utterly pointless!

If a ph

Re:

[itlurksbeneath]

Wait a sec... Was the picture taken from public property? I fail to see how anyone, as a citizen or representative of a public company, could get sued for taking pictures as long as you're not trespassing or violating any laws. If you drive down a (public) street and take a picture of a house and post it on your blog you can get sued? WTF?

Maybe the morons from the lawsuit should sue their mail man and paper boy. They've SEEN the house! Obviously anybody that gazes on their house is violating their p

Re:

[mmcuh]

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..

Then maybe they shouldn't do that?

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

They are doing "pictures" of almost every web site out there right now. Did they ask all the web site owners? No? Then maybe they shouldn't do that!

Re:

[Metasquares]

There's a difference: the primary purpose of a website is to attract viewers. I don't walk outside so people can take photos of me.

Re:I don't like that defense

[Troed]

... but you do treat the outside of your house with the expectation that others (random people) will look at it and admire it/you.

Re:I don't like that defense

[goldspider]

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.

Re:

[vertinox]

Then maybe they shouldn't do that?

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

[nahdude812]

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.

Don't go there.

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Don't go there.

[Smallpond]

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.

Re:

[Arslan ibn Da'ud]

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.

Re:

[Smallpond]

It's the landowner's responsibility to post and maintain signs. One sign would not cut it on open land, you have to post the whole perimeter. However the law distinguishes settled land from open land, so maybe the rules are different. Of course, your rights to the land are limited. Nobody in Pittsburgh owns the mineral rights under their own homes, for example. Those were all sold out from under them 200 years ago.

Re:

[caseih]

Under some state's laws, a private road just means that you happen to maintain the road. Whether or not people can access that road is another issue entirely. In Utah, for example, if the road allows public access continually over a period of years, then you permanently lose the ability to control who accesses this road. IE you can still tow people who park on the road, but you can never ban anyone from driving on the road. One large private university completely blocks off campus every couple of years

Re:

[Sax Maniac]

Our street is plainly labeled "Private Road, No Trespassing" because it's still under construction and not public yet. Not that I care about having the picture, but Google doesn't care either, they put it on street view anyway. So, it's not a stretch to say they willfully ignore such signs.

Re:

[Emmef]

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.

So sue them for damages arising from unlawful trespassing. But I don't see how this makes the invasion of privacy case any different from others.

Re:

[ajs]

What makes this case different:

* Claim of suffering due to image of house on Web
* Claim of property value loss due to image of house on Web
* Use of courts to resolve issue that one fax could have taken care of

Beyond that, this seems to be same-old, same-old.

Next!

Re:

[ajs]

Side question: what is slashdot's posting system doing? They just sent this to my Web server when I posted the above comment:

66.35.250.150 - - [06/Apr/2008:10:07:27 -0400] "GET http://yro.slashdot.org/ok.txt HTTP/1.0" 404 285 "-" "libwww-perl/5.803"

What are they trying to do?

Re:

[schon]

That looks like a proxy request. I'd guess that they're checking to see if you're posting through an open proxy.

Re:

[Dan541]

If it was a private road the google van would not have been able to drive onto it.

You cant just connect your own road to the public network and expect people to stay off it while its wide open.

Am I going to be sued by turning around in someones drive way?

Re:

[Dredd13]

You cant just connect your own road to the public network and expect people to stay off it while its wide open.

Actually, you can. There are plenty of jurisdictions where "Private Road" means "No trespassing".

Thank you google!

[Vampyre_Dark]

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?

Re:

[BountyX]

There are many benefits to what google is doing...but pretty much anything they touch loses its virginity...I mean privacy. Thousands of private servers have been indexed on google becuase people dont understand the privacy issues created by indexing information (infact whenever I need the latest [INSERT SOFTWARE HERE] and I need good download speeds becuase torrents are too slow... I just google index of /[INSERT FILE FROM INSTALL HERE]. Most private servers are completly unaware they have been indexed. Go

Re:

[jchawk]

Let me get this straight?

I put a server on the internet.

I don't password protect it.

I don't even bother to put a robots.txt file, which google would respect.

I get indexed and it's googles fault?

I think it's the clueless person who put a server up on the internet and made it publicly available.

Who's fault is it?

[celerityfm]

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.

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.

Re:

[Megane]

Here in Texas, we have a much better solution for rural places like that: GATES. If there's a gate, or even just a cattle guard, it probably isn't a public road.

Re:

[hansamurai]

Well, there are eight mailboxes at the end of Oakridge Lane, that doesn't seem that private and there's no gate or private drive sign to ward off drivers. Also it looks like the street view extends to their driveway simply because they built their house at the end of the road.

Re:

[AaxelB]

if you follow along on Google maps you can see that the street appears to extend all the way to their garage.

I noticed the exact same thing, except it looks like the area in front of their garage is the obligatory turnaround at the end of a one-lane road, so the road does, in fact, extend all the way to their garage. From what I can see, unless there's a sign, I would end up driving all the way up, just so I could turn around comfortably. Maybe the driver should have turned off the camera, but I think they had every right to be there. I'm not sure how much control the driver has over the camera, or if it just run

Ambulance Chasers

[Detritus]

I think the judge should have a big red button on the bench, connected to a solenoid and trap-door located under the plaintiff and his lawyer. As volcanoes are in short supply, a pool full of hungry crocodiles would do.

Re:

[eebra82]

As volcanoes are in short supply, a pool full of hungry crocodiles would do.

You just lost Tom Cruise over that one.

It comes down to visibility

[Random BedHead Ed]

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.

Re:

[jchawk]

I'm not saying I agree with this lawsuit however I think their point is that the van entered their property and took photos which they published online.

The view that the Allegheny County website can be see here -

http://tinyurl.com/4fxjxq [tinyurl.com]

Seems to be taken from the road.

These images, specifically the ones on the bottom appear to be taken on their property -

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google7.html [thesmokinggun.com]

My first impression of this is the van turned around in their lot and some of those pict

Mental Anguish?

[dlc3007]

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.

Doesn't matter what the sign says...

[hyades1]

...If the photographer/videographer is in a public place when they make the picture, they can tell people like this to kiss their rosy bum. The courts in many countries have spoken unequivocally on this. The case might be different if the entire road is on private property, but that doesn't sound like that's what's happening.

no case

[nguy]

They don't have a case. Anyone can take pictures from a public location; if you don't want to be photographed, you have to put up a fence.

Contrary to what they claim, the road in question wasn't even clearly marked a "Private Road" (you can see that in street view itself; there's no sign anywhere).

However, Google has apparently voluntarily removed the images anyway, which makes their case collapse.

They Should Sue The County Too

[MrNonchalant]

Allegheny County has a real estate assessment website which has pictures of every house in the county. Including the Borings:
http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Image.asp?CurrBloLot=0823E00136000000&Street=Oakridge [allegheny.pa.us]

Re:

[BACPro]

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"

I think I can hear banjos in the background...

Re:

[anlprb]

You completely misunderstand the difference between government and private corporations.

This is the consequence of "opt out" systems

[WCMI92]

vs "Opt In"

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...

Google takes the old Marine approach.

[The Living Fractal]

It's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

End of story.

Public Records

[nurb432]

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. )

"Private" Road doesn't always mean "No Trespass...

[Ogre840]

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.

Re:

[AaxelB]

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.

Re:Diminished Value?

[jrumney]

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.

Re:Diminished Value?

[schon]

the fact that it is on a "private" road. Google's images demonstrate how little that is really worth

So in other words, they're angry at Google for pointing out their own stupidity?

Re:

[DRACO-]

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.

Re:Diminished Value?

[Macthorpe]

So we should stop caring because the photos they're taking of the inside and outside of people's houses and using for profit are low quality?

Thank goodness for that, I thought it might be a problem.

Re:Diminished Value?

[kyct]

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.

Re:

[hedwards]

I'm also not a lawyer, but from what I can tell, private roads are private because they were built and are maintained by private citizens rather than the government. Mainly because they go places that few people in the area would like to go.

They'll lose the case because there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy to claim. Law enforcement and emergency vehicles are legally allowed on all of those roads as necessary, and so are other people. If they had a gate or barrier then they might have a case, but

Re:Diminished Value?

[ubuwalker31]

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

Re:

[anlprb]

Sorry, I am a surveyor. Private is just that, Google was trespassing. They have no rights to go on that road. This is tantamount to walking inside someone's house and taking pictures of their bedroom. If the road is private, they have every expectation of privacy. Sorry Google, better read those posted signs better next time. Open and shut case. Any good judge will find for the plaintiff on this one. If this were a public road, fine, all is fair, but it is private for a reason. I personally would h

Re:

[SnowZero]

On the feeder road (Reis Run Rd) there is a curious sign that says "Yellow Belt" with a yellow circle on it. It looks like a standard government reflective road sign, but I do not know what it means.

There are several loops around Pittsburgh so people can drive around and see the city, or to navigate around the city as some sort of crude beltway. I found a link here [pahighways.com] with more information. I used to live next to the blue belt.

Photographer rights

[faffod]

For the most part you are also allowed to take photos of government and (some military) locations. from http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf [krages.com] [read the whole paper for the details that I've ommited]
The General Rule
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 ta

Re:

[balloonhead]

It's not an all-encompassing list, more just a list of things which a photographer might be told not to photograph without there being any legal basis for the request not to. i.e. Photographers probably get told regularly not to photograph cops, kids and celebs by the cops, the parents, or the minders, but this is just so that they know their legal rights are likely to be to take the shot. Adults aren't there because the question is rarely raised.

Re:

[dgatwood]

That's simply not true. Most private roads are paid for with private funds, including the upkeep and maintenance thereof. If the homeowners who pay for that upkeep want to keep people off of them, they have every right to do so. Of course, without a gate, one can reasonably ignore private road signs, so long as your purpose for visiting is within reason (driving to see someone who lives there, etc.). It is, however, still private property, and you do not have any automatic right to take photos on privat

Re:

[dgatwood]

I live in a private community, with a gated, private access road. We pay HOA fees for upkeep of the gutters, street lights, etc, but the road itself is still actually owned by the city, and there's a line item in my county taxes for road maintenance. (this in is contract to my father who lives in a neighborhood that OWNS the road, and he does not pay this tax, living in the same town).

In some places, you aren't allowed to put a gate on a road that is maintained by the city. That was certainly true where

Private Roads

[qbzzt]

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.

Re:

[budgenator]

That's probably a bad assumption, Pennsylvania is an English common law state, but Texas is a Spanish common law State there can be very dramatic differences

Re:Diminished Value?

[Dan541]

Should they not seek to prosecute Google for trespassing then?

~Dan

Re:Diminished Value?

[mapinguari]

They are [thesmokinggun.com].

Re:Diminished Value?

[aplusjimages]

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.

Re:Diminished Value?

[mikael]

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.

Re:

[MrNaz]

On an entirely separate note, why are we so suspicious of one another that we live in legally constructed imaginary fortresses upon which the mere presence of somebody else causes us to go berserk?

Personally, I'd prefer to live in a place where people I didn't know came to visit me all the time. In fact, I actively try to solicit that [couchsurfing.com].

Texas woman with gun threatens Dane on lawn

[VampireByte]

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!

Re:Diminished Value?

[schon]

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.

Re:Diminished Value?

[STrinity]

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.

Re:

[piojo]

If you shouldn't sue, what should you do when someone bigger and stronger than you does something wrong to you? Law enforcement's not gonna help, they don't care about trivialities. Personally, I'm happy about this lawsuit, because it may serve as a reminder to Google not to go over the line when making private things public.

Re:Diminished Value?

[antibryce]

http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Search.asp [allegheny.pa.us]

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.

Re:Diminished Value?

[mikael]

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.

nah, there is no diminished value

[someone1234]

Nor mental suffering.
This whole hype is to pump up the value of their house.
Hope they will get some hate mail, so at least the mental suffering will be true.
They might suffer some mental problems, though. But that's not Google's fault.

Darwin Effect of 'Diminished Value'

[Geodesy99]

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.

Re:

[Overzeetop]

(1) $25k isn't exactly punitive to Google - it probably wouldn't even cover litigation costs if this went to court. Eric Schmidt probably loses that much change in his sofa each year.

(2) Others have posted that there are no signs visible indicating that this named road is private, or that trespassing is prohibited. It is entirely likely (though I don't know for certain) that there is, in fact, a public right of way centered on the road. That is often the case in Virginia even when the road is listed as priv

Re:

[Stray7Xi]

I have no problems with anyone that wants to take a photo of my home. I have a problem when they want to put in a database that can be datamined and used to analyze me.

Sure Google will remove the photos And when Microsoft, Yahoo, and Verifax start doing the same, you're supposed to click their link to remove even though they never inform you that you've been added to their database? Some of us value our privacy but don't consider it our onus to have to spend time searching for people trying to breach our