BoingBoing reader demonstrates misunderstanding of privacy

Keep in mind that the photographs in question contain images of individuals (and cats) only incidentally. They add no value to the photographs, in fact it could be argued that they detract from the value.

The goal apparently is to take pictures of inanimate objects like buildings, which is expressly permitted by law. If pictures of buildings are expressly permitted, it would seem unreasonable to expect that people might not be included incidentally as clearing streets, especially in cities, of all people in order to take a photograph is nearly impossible.

Like most things in U.S. law it probably isn’t cut and dried and you can likely find a judge somewhere who will agree with any argument you make if you look hard enough. But let’s be reasonable here. In this case, Google doesn’t seem to be out with the intent to violate anyone’s privacy.

RE: #24 Robert, you’re right. I think, in this case, Google is clearly showing stuff you’d see with the naked eye from the street.

“Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No.”

My highschool english teacher, who I won’t name was seen walking out of a store where they sell pornographic videos. This was way back when. This information and media was shared with the entire school.

What if Google van catches a man cheating on his wife kissing another woman or walking out of a XXX store, or even hanging out with X rival corporation.

Would this person be entitled to damages caused by the redistribution and publication of these images?

BTW, I was sure that certain zoom was not permitted in my earlier comment.

“Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No.”

My highschool english teacher, who I won’t name was seen walking out of a store where they sell pornographic videos. This was way back when. This information and media was shared with the entire school.

What if Google van catches a man cheating on his wife kissing another woman or walking out of a XXX store, or even hanging out with X rival corporation.

Would this person be entitled to damages caused by the redistribution and publication of these images?

BTW, I was sure that certain zoom was not permitted in my earlier comment.

Robert — what Google is doing is probably not illegal, but it is creepy. And as someone who was closely involved with the recent Kathy Sierra events, I am surprised that you of all people don’t recognize that this can make people feel threatened.

I feel very, very uncomfortable that someone can sit at their leisure at their desk, call up a highly detailed photo of the outside of my home, and view it from a number of different angles to decide what would be the best way to break into the building, all without having to be on the scene.

That bothers me. I’ve always felt safer in an apartment building than in a free-standing house, but this is going to take away some of that perceived security advantage.

rslux: interesting point. On the other hand, my security systems will not be visible to cameras from curbside. So, how would my house be targeted over yours by just looking at photos?

A few thoughts:

1) What’s creepy is to think of entire neighborhoods with blinds shut tight…each homeowner protecting themselves from Google (MS, Mapquest, whoever 2.0). Sometimes, doing things just because you can is a bad idea.

2) Combing through all the images would be a cool use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

3) The ever-increasing rate of surveillance ought to spawn off a robust anti-surveillance industry. Imagine the demand for items that cloak people/things from cameras and other detectors.

.

“IANAL is a Usenet and chat abbreviation (acronym) for “I am not a lawyer.” A similar abbreviation, TINLA, stands for “This is not legal advice.”
One or both of these abbreviations usually precede opinions about law. The use of these abbreviations serves as a warning for the reader not to take the opinion as professional legal advice. Many jurisdictions have legal restrictions on actually giving or even appearing to give legal advice, or otherwise practicing as a lawyer without legal qualifications and official registration. Rendition of legal advice by a person who is not licensed to do so can be the basis for a charge of Unauthorized practice of law.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL

.

.

If I take your picture on the street, and then upload it to my blog, and my blog has some Ads on it, is that legal? Do you need a release just to use it on a site, that may or may not make money?

Here in the Uk our privacy laws are very similiar. Not sure what its like in the states but here we have the highest number of CCTVs in the world. People here who complain about having their pictures taking our mostly oblivious of the fact they they are being filmed and recorded by many cameras. I can’t remember exactly but the newswpapers here have quoted but some figure like on average in a UK city you are “captured” by CCTV on average 300 times a day or something. And not a damn thing you can do about it – its public.

Robert, regarding public photography: Let’s say a guy is taking pictures of my young daughter. It feels like I should be able to walk up to the guy and say “I don’t want you to do that” and he should respect that. I’m not sure if I would have any legal grounds, but it just feels like there should be.

If you learn one thing about privacy and libel law, nothing is ever fixed, depends on what judge, what lawyer, what State, and the community standards definitions of “unreasonable”, “abandonment”, “curtilage”, “false light”, “appropriation”, “public figure”, “newsworthy”, “clear and present”, “consent” and on and on. Case by case, really…

And here I was thinking that there was never a legit reason to post bestiality in my window. Surely Google wouldn’t want to broadcast my home then, right?

Robert, you are wrong in this.

The 4th amendment offers up the “reasonable expectation of privacy” as regards to government intrusion; this also extends to private entities. As this is an enclosed home, the photo is infringing upon that reasonable expectation.

The Supreme Court has also held that the “curtilage” (look it up) of a home is subject to all of the privacy protection that a person’s home is. That does not apply to this photograph, but could certainly apply to others– attached carports, for example.

The satellite view from Google does not infringe, mainly because they are not taking photographs of the inside of people’s homes. This, however, does infringe.

Please read this summary of US privacy law and then correct your argument.

As my esteemed former colleague JD has prompted: I am not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

You can photograph anything you can see from the street, but that doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with it. Certainly images used for commercial purposes need permission and images that purposely embarrass or slander the individual are not protected either.

Privacy laws were written in the same vein as free speech laws. They were both designed to promote discussion and the open expression of ideas, NOT to allow people so say or do absolutely whatever they want absolutely whenever they want. We have free speech but that doesn’t mean you can yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.

Also, what about manipulation? How do we know these images haven’t been manipulated and are not exactly “what you would see from the street”?

It simply isn’t as simple as “if you can see it from the street, you can photograph it and do whatever you want with that image.”

Robert,

I’m sorry, but until you cite statutes (i.e. the Code #, or a Supco decision or two) you’re going to have to do better than just say ‘the law says’….

The laws vary from state to state to state on this. Do a google search on ‘through the window’ and privacy search and you’ll start to see the differences. You can look at this google book and start to see examples of where things might get dicey…

http://books.google.com/books?id=HEL0M-boMpgC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=privacy+law+picture+%22through+the+window%22&source=web&ots=9gwuXu_8C2&sig=Dm9M3G-HUwfQjBdx8yPL5-k5w54

Here is another summary (which actually mentions through the window situations)

http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/rights-of-publicity-and-privacy.html

If google publishes my picture I’m going to sue them.

How soon we forget. Ken Adelman went to the mattresses in 2003 against Barbara Streisand on a very similar issue and won. Conclusively. With costs awarded.

http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html

http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/pressrelease-decision.html

Robert although you are right, I think that US law and the Law in Britain (where I am) were framed on the same basis. It is legal to show anything which someone standing in a public place could have seen. If you invade someone’s privacy by getting a ladder and shooting with a powerful lens, or by infra-red or by X-ray that’s out of order.

But there is a difference between what was under consideration when laws were framed – newspapers which are not indexed, and putting something in a database on the internet where it can be found by anyone, anywhere for a long period of time.

Still: look on the bright side, the average person in Britain is recorded on CCTV 300 times per day, and has no idea who by or what they are doing with the data. The police want to be keep data from automatic license plate recognition cameras for 2 years and scan 50 million plates a day by next year (in a country with 20 million vehicles). At least with Google you know what they have on you.

Thanks for trying to poke a hole in our false sense of privacy. Scott McNealy reportedly said in January 1999
“There is no privacy, get over it.” It’s a statement that rang true then and even more so now.

This is an interesting subject and a difficult one but why do people keep assuming that what is legal is also “right”? My experience is that law and justice only intermittently come in contact with one another. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. I think a lot of people who now don’t think much about this “mapping” will one day come to a different understanding of the subject.

I added here the best Google Street View (28 views and more after …).

This is a very interesting topic, but all the discussion about what is and isn’t legal is missing the point. The question that people are reacting to is what SHOULD the law be. The fact of the matter is that our consitution doesn’t grant citizens a right to privacy. However, that framework was written over two hundred years ago before the age of photography, television, radio, computers, internet and all other forms of knowledge-on-demand. K.O.D. has fundamentally changed the game and what the “cat lady” (who seems to me to be smart and thoughtful woman concerned about the use of technology) and many others are asking is where should we draw the line? I believe there is a difference between what a person could see about your life from the street and disseminating that on the internet for everyone and anyone with high resolution photos cross-indexed to your address, phone number, name, employment data, … you name it.

The question is, how do we protect “privacy” without stagnating new technologies and useful information gathering?

it’s a slippery slope heading down towards Google X-Ray Vision, Google Remote Hypnotic Suggestion, Google’s Invisible Hand and Google Time Stop/Rewind…

it’s all right there in the Advanced Dungeons And Dragons Dungeon Masters’ Guide…

-srini