Google Wins Street View Privacy Suit

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A U.S. District Court has dismissed a lawsuit against Google brought by homeowners in Pittsburgh. You’ll remember that the couple were upset that a Street View car disregarded private property signs and drove up a private drive to photograph their house. I guess the term “no trespassing” doesn’t mean anything any more.

Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant last April, alleging that Google "significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests" when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked "private road." The couple claimed in their five-count lawsuit that finding their home clearly visible on Google's Street View caused them "mental suffering" and diluted their home value.
Click to expand...
 
Wait wait wait... Their last name is Boring?!



100% pure gold right there. Looks like they had nothing else to do :D
 
Totally agree with the other 2 posters.

That being said.... have you ever heard of somebody choosing to buy a home based on whether it can be seen on google maps?

I think the whole "diluted their home value" is crap.

True, the google car probably shouldn't have driven up ther driveway... but that really isn't grounds for a lawsuit.

Glad to see another frivilous lawsuit has gotten thrown out.
 
while I do somewhat agree with their concern and don't think that google should of ignored the signs, the frivolous lawsuit they filed is just absurd (and a big part of whats wrong with this country).

glad it got tossed out :)
 
Its only frivolous until its your driveway. Does this mean that we then have no legal reason to not open a gate, say at some famous actor/actresses residence and walk up to their house? I mean, if the gate isn't locked it's ok right?

The Borings only fault in this case was that they didn't file it in the 9th district, or at least the 6th. Both of those hate business, so Google would have just settled.
 
They should install a gate or a spike strip.
 
I think the mental suffering and diluted home value was a pre-existing condition.
 
the_dealer said:
Its only frivolous until its your driveway. Does this mean that we then have no legal reason to not open a gate, say at some famous actor/actresses residence and walk up to their house? I mean, if the gate isn't locked it's ok right?

The Borings only fault in this case was that they didn't file it in the 9th district, or at least the 6th. Both of those hate business, so Google would have just settled.
Click to expand...

agree, if it was my property I would have taken exception too...especially if I'd seen someone drive onto my property and snap some pics. I'd have to snap some necks!
 
"No Trespassing" only really ever meant anything to honest people, not the people you're actually trying to keep out.
 
I don't get why these peeps didn't try to charge the specific driver, on that specific day with Trespassing. Looking for anything else is what got this case tossed.

And w1re, nice burn :)
 
the_dealer said:
Its only frivolous until its your driveway. Does this mean that we then have no legal reason to not open a gate, say at some famous actor/actresses residence and walk up to their house? I mean, if the gate isn't locked it's ok right?

The Borings only fault in this case was that they didn't file it in the 9th district, or at least the 6th. Both of those hate business, so Google would have just settled.
Click to expand...

come on, mental suffering.... declining home value? I HIGHLY doubt it. Sounds like some opportunistic douches trying to strike it rich just because it's google. (it appears that the court agreed)
 
damn, no edit.

I would agree with them taking google to court to have the images removed and possibly cover court costs... anything more than that is just insane
 
My first thought was what other stupid lawsuits have these people been involved with previously that allowed them to settle into a nice, gated, private, community.
 
private property signs are just signs to just say so, there is nothing stopping you from driving up it just there to say your not on public highway any more if the sign next to it sayed you will be shot if seen trespassing , if they had fitted an gate then i am assuming that they would of not opened it
 
I visited the US Supreme Court in Washington. The main hearing chamber has NO PHOTOGRAPHY signs posted on the entrance doors. When I entered the chamber with camera in hand (fresh from taking photos outside), a guard immediately approached to REMIND me of the no photograph policy.
 
so the economy didn't dilute their home value?
 
While I don't agree with the "mental anguish" crap and the devaluing of their house, Google had no business going up a private driveway and snapping pictures of their house without permission.

Google should still be held accountable for their actions.
 
Vermillion said:
While I don't agree with the "mental anguish" crap and the devaluing of their house, Google had no business going up a private driveway and snapping pictures of their house without permission.

Google should still be held accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but that wasn't what the lawsuit was about. The owners wanted compensations for other dumb things. All they should have said was "Google took unauthorized photos of our house on a private driveway. We would like the court to order them removed from Google Maps".

But no, they had to get greedy. The judge rolled his eyes and told them to get out of his court room and not waste his time.
 
Waste of time, suing for damages. However, nothing wrong with charging them formally with criminal trespass. Ultimately pointless, though, since only the driver could possibly be held accountable in that scenario.
 
Old_Way said:
My first thought was what other stupid lawsuits have these people been involved with previously that allowed them to settle into a nice, gated, private, community.
Click to expand...

Where did it say that the "Borings" lived in a "nice, gated, private community"? My understanding was they only had signs posted. Gate or not, Google was still trespassing, and using it to make profits for their company.

Vermillion said:
While I don't agree with the "mental anguish" crap and the devaluing of their house, Google had no business going up a private driveway and snapping pictures of their house without permission.

Google should still be held accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

+1

Fuck companies that think they can do whatever they want. Breaking the law and invasion of privacy FTL, and they got away with it. I suppose Google will now start un-blurring faces now since they "won" this one.

The couple probably had to press extra charges against them not only to hope one would stick, but to get Google's attention. I am really thinking it was the lawyer's idea. I bet if this was the Google CEO's house(s) there would have been something done about it.
 
While the "mental suffering" claims are bogus GOOG still broke the fucking law.

So, my property is not mine anymore? If a company is big enough they can just come on in and take pictures and hang out? Maybe drink my beer and watch some TV?

OK, comarade. WTF ever.
 
ianken said:
While the "mental suffering" claims are bogus GOOG still broke the fucking law.

So, my property is not mine anymore? If a company is big enough they can just come on in and take pictures and hang out? Maybe drink my beer and watch some TV?

OK, comarade. WTF ever.
Click to expand...

lets go slow so you can understand the case: The. Borings. did. not. ask. the. judge. to. remove. the. images. from. Google. Maps. nor. did. they. press. charges. against. them. for. trespassing. They. got. greedy. and. demanded. compensations. for. bogus. claims. such. as. mental. sufferings. and. property. devaluation.

If they had just said "your honor, Google trespassed on our property and we want to prevent them from doing this again. We also want Google to remove us from their map" the judge just might comply.
 
It looks like it was just a civil case. If it were me, I'd file criminal charges. Of course, if it were me, I'd have an automatic gate. Google can take pictures of anything as long as they are not on my property.
 
Hell I'd be happy if they remove the pictures and formally charged the driver with trespassing (obviously there's proof it occurred)
 
Azhar said:
lets go slow so you can understand the case: The. Borings. did. not. ask. the. judge. to. remove. the. images. from. Google. Maps. nor. did. they. press. charges. against. them. for. trespassing. They. got. greedy. and. demanded. compensations. for. bogus. claims. such. as. mental. sufferings. and. property. devaluation.

If they had just said "your honor, Google trespassed on our property and we want to prevent them from doing this again. We also want Google to remove us from their map" the judge just might comply.
Click to expand...

amen
 
Mmm, I rarely post on the comment section, but I thought this was a rather interesting segment that nobody else mentioned:

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


It's really scary that such a quote comes from an entity that has the most access to everyone's information.
 
To all those who say google blatantly ignored a sign, and should be punished, i ask you to what degree? You feel they should be sued into oblivion? Ignoring a no trespassing sign is worth $10,000,000 in penalties? Or what? What exactly are you advocating when you say Google should be held accountable for ignoring a property sign?

If a police officer were to apprehend someone trespassing I imagine they could be charged with a fine of no more than $100. There, problem solved, are you happy now?
 
ianken said:
While the "mental suffering" claims are bogus GOOG still broke the fucking law.

So, my property is not mine anymore? If a company is big enough they can just come on in and take pictures and hang out? Maybe drink my beer and watch some TV?

OK, comarade. WTF ever.
Click to expand...
You voted for Bush didnt you... twice
 
ShagnWagn said:
Where did it say that the "Borings" lived in a "nice, gated, private community"? My understanding was they only had signs posted. Gate or not, Google was still trespassing, and using it to make profits for their company.



+1

Fuck companies that think they can do whatever they want. Breaking the law and invasion of privacy FTL, and they got away with it. I suppose Google will now start un-blurring faces now since they "won" this one.

The couple probably had to press extra charges against them not only to hope one would stick, but to get Google's attention. I am really thinking it was the lawyer's idea. I bet if this was the Google CEO's house(s) there would have been something done about it.
Click to expand...

Calm down, take a breath, eeassssy there. Have you ever seen a google car? They're all just toyota hybrid's with a mast mounted omnidirectional camera on the roof. The people that drive them are college kids, college dropouts, random schmucks, nobody's. REALISTICALLY what probably happened that day was

a) guy didnt even notice sign when driving up property
b) guy didnt even care when he saw the sign
c) didnt know sign was enforceable and felt he had to do his job to "drive up every single street"

I highly doubt google passed some referendum to all street employees that they must photograph everything or be fired, etc. Now should the employee be held responsible? I dunno, it would suck if he was, but he probably felt he was just doing his job. UPS drivers get tickets for running a red light, not UPS.

Anyway the biggest fallacy these people have regarding home value and public display of their home is that anyone with a high zoom lens could photograph their home, anyone can use satellite photography to see it, anyone could potentially use microsoft's licensed "birds eye" view in Virtual Earth to see the home, I could fly a private plane 1000 ft overhead and photgraph the home, the list goes on and on. This list goes on and on.

As someone already mentioned this couple didnt sue for trespassing they sued for mental anguish and loss of home value. Neither could ever be upheld in court. Should have just "sued" for trespassing, i.e. call the cops or go to small claims court and win some pathetic $1000 settlement at best.
 
ianken said:
While the "mental suffering" claims are bogus GOOG still broke the fucking law.

So, my property is not mine anymore? If a company is big enough they can just come on in and take pictures and hang out? Maybe drink my beer and watch some TV?

OK, comarade. WTF ever.
Click to expand...

Then Google should have been warned not to do it again and slapped with a small fine, maybe.. I think the fact that these people were intentionally trying to milk it for cash by practically acting like they'd been mentally raped, they got what they deserved.. Jack shit.

I mean, seriously, wtf? What kind of mental damage could they really claim? Are they having flashbacks and dreaming of fleets of cars coming on their property snapping pictures, while the drivers laugh maniacally?

They might have actually gotten somewhere if they hadn't laid it on a bit too thick. Sometimes being hyperbolic just doesn't pay off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top