Google's 'Street View' Photos of Homes Violates Owners' Privacy, Lawsuit Argues

FoxNews ^ | April 4, 2008 | Associated Press

[MissouriConservative]

A western Pennsylvania couple has sued Google Inc., saying pictures of their home that appear on the Web site's "Street View" feature violated their privacy, devalued their property and caused them mental suffering.

**snip**

The couple's attorney, Dennis Moskal, said that is not the point. He said the Borings' privacy was invaded when the Google vehicle allegedly drove onto their property. Removing the image does not undo that damage — nor will it deter the company from doing the same thing in the future, he said.

"Isn't litigation the only way to change a big business' conduct with the public?" Moskal said. "What happened to their accountability?"

Google, however, is not the only Web site with a photo of the Borings' property.

**snip**

Moskal said the county's image appeared to have been taken from a public street.

"The county's not trespassing," Moskal said.

[MissouriConservative]

People trying to win “life’s lottery” through lawsuits. It’s no wonder the cost of doing business has gone up these past couple of decades.

[goldstategop]

Satellite photos are public property and photos taken from the earth's orbit don't violate trespassing laws. In the Internet Age, one has very little expectation of true privacy.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Mark was here]

If you do not want any one to see your house grow a huge row of shrubs around it.

[Cementjungle]

Mental suffering? Sheesh!

[MissouriConservative]

The part that gets me is they say that their property was devalued and they suffered mental anguish just from someone driving on their driveway. They don’t care that the country real estate took pictures of their home....it’s the fact that someone drove on their driveway. Of course, the county real estate doesn’t have billions of dollars either.

[SolidWood]

Read first. This is not satellite imagery, but Google vehicles driving up the roads for "street imagery". They apparently entered their private property.

I'm with the couple 100%. Google is evil.

[MissouriConservative]

Shrubs, trees of the conifer variety...there are countless ways. A nice gate across the drive would send a great message.

[Ray54]

Money for nothing.

[Hunble]

Oh grow up!

[Centurion2000]

I keep waiting for one company to simply say enough and have a hitman take out one of the plaintiffs and their attorney in a high profile, yet ultimately frivolous, lawsuit.

I like to think it would send a message to lawyers and plaintiffs alike.

[MissouriConservative]

Yep, mental suffering from someone driving on your driveway.

[mngran2]

Did you read the article? They're not talking about satellite views. Google trespassed and drove a vehicle onto their private property without their consent to take pictures and then posted those photos on the internet to make a profit. Sorry, I'm with the private property owners on this one sticking up for their rights. They should be reasonably compensated for the intrusion.

[SpaceBar]

A few weeks ago, google was enjoined from making street level panoramic videos of sensitive US military installations. That said, serving publicly available satellite imagery of swimming pools in the ‘burbs is entertainment, parking a van in front of your house with a high-def video camera and satellite uplink to servers smacks of cyber stalking.

[MissouriConservative]

I’m a defender of privacy but they seem to conflict with themselves. Their claim is not trespassing, if it was, they would have filed a police report and had that photographer arrested. No, they are claiming a privacy violation. Yet, they didn’t use the links provided to remove the picture and they don’t have a beef with the county...it’s all about the dollars.

[goldstategop]

THAT is trespassing and Google had no right to enter the property without previous invitation. There's good grounds for a lawsuit to enjoin the practice. Google has to pay for profiting with images it wasn't authorized to take and post on the web. Its outright theft.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

We live in a litigious society. Google may be a billion dollar search engine giant but its not above the law.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Cementjungle]

Yep, mental suffering from someone driving on your driveway.

Gotcha. I think I'll sue the electric company meter reader for seeing my house.

[Cementjungle]

Google still shows my house as the empty, muddy lot that it was 4 years ago before it was built. I would say that devalues my property, so I guess I should sue too.

[dschapin]

The CEO who ordered that and all the employees involved would get charged with 1st degree murder. The company Executives would likely be sued under Civil Rico for treble damages and attorneys fees. And the family of the lawyer would almost certainly bring a wrongfull death action. Considering that almost all judges are lawyers and that the CEO in your hypo would be guilty as sin I think we can safely say that the CEO would go to death row. All of his assetts would be lost in the civil suits, and likely the company would go under. As a result I highly doubt that any company will try that particular reprehensible tactic anytime soon.