Entire Minnesota Town Removed From Google Street View
from the don't-trespass-me,-bro dept
Apparently a small "privately-owned" Minnesota town, called North Oaks, that includes "no trespassing" signs on all streets entering the community, wasn't particularly happy when it found out that Google's Street View vehicles made a trip through the town. After discovering (gasp!) images of houses in the town on Google Maps, the town demanded that Google take down the images -- which Google did. There's no real controversy here, since the town (correctly) asked Google to remove the images rather than rush to sue, but the whole thing still seems bizarre. What really is the big deal about Google Street View having photos online? It's difficult to see how this is any sort of privacy violation, but it does seem these days people go out of their way to think that they can control things that really shouldn't be controlled. Legally, the town may be on solid ground, since the community is on private land -- but it's difficult to see why they would object so strenuously to this offering.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: google maps, minnesota, north oaks, street view
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Still on Microsoft Live
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Privacy - good for me, bad for you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
priorities
[ link to this | view in thread ]
language
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There ain't no such town if it ain't on Google
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Public View, No Right to Privacy
In this situation, to bad Google is trying to be a good neighbor.
Barbara Streisand's House
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Different take - criminal activity?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@Ben Ursa
Not so quick there. Their right to privacy doesn't necessarily trump our right to know or Google's.
The entire town's roads are privately owned? Really and truly? Built and maintained and policed with NO state or federal funds?
Are they wanting privacy for privacy sake or to cover up illegal or illicit activity? There's no reason to suspect the latter, but maybe this is a mob or gypsy haven... I see a lot of NICE houses there? Let's get real, their right to privacy ends where their actions encroach on our rights, liberties, pocketbooks, resources, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Still on Microsoft Live
Now, onto the original subject. I can understand why they might not want pictures taken of their town and there are many reasons for it BUT the only reason they need is the fact that they were trespassing on private property. Avoiding saying anything else about the situation also avoids getting caught in the Streisand Effect any more than they have to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, the point is privacy...
If privacy were not an issue, then there would be no "Anonymous Coward".
This is not a "Streisand" point. She complained about someone taking pictures from a public place. These are pictures taken on private property, the pictures prove trespassing. Defend your freedoms or loose your freedom.
What I do or don't do on my property is not your business.
You do NOT have the freedom to invade my body, my home, my property or my country.
These protections are freedom.
Google was right in taking the pictures down.
The town was right in requesting the take-down.
I would do the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @Ben Ursa
Since they're entirely private, you have no "rights, liberties, pocketbooks, resources, etc." to be encroached upon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: priorities
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, the point is privacy...
Now, any pictures taken of the property from public ground is free game, as long as the picture is not directly taken of anything in the house. This is how paparazzi get away with as much as they do.
At least they didn't sue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't get it!
Funny americans!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @Ben Ursa
Or are you sacrificing your privacy for my right to know?
Do I have the right to walk into your home and take pictures?
I would expect your response is no. maybe your harboring illegal immigrants in your closet. I think your right to privacy is encroaching my right to know
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doh!!
Here's the last bit without any words missing..
"Maybe if they were left off the map and we were to forget about them for long enough they'd evolve to have golf clubs for arms and some overblown sense of religion. They're probably half way there already!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just kidding. Who really cares what they are doing in their rinky dink little town. I live in MN, and I have never had a reason to go to North Oaks, and I probably never will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Still on Microsoft Live
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Still on Microsoft Live
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, the point is privacy...
I'm really surprised how many people are leaving comments about wanting to take away this town's privacy. Why is it so important to make such a big deal about the issue? If the town wants their freedom and properly defends it, why is this a problem for some people?
If you don't like your rights, you are welcome to move somewhere else that doesn't provide as many. This is not really as big a deal as many of you are making it to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A perfect storm: Babs moves there
North Oaks, MN Map Here is hoping for a Streisand Effect!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, the point is privacy...
The key to the story is that it is not public ground. This is a private town.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @Ben Ursa
Their right to privacy encroaches on nothing of anyone else's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
The community may be "private" but the roads may not be. The fact that Google was able to use the roads would imply that public access was available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
______________
Welcome to the official website for the City of North Oaks
Located in the Twin Cities,just northeast of St. Paul,
Minnesota, North Oaks is a unique suburban community. With a rich history and emphasis on retaining the natural environment, North Oaks celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2006.
Approximately 4500 residents call North Oaks home. Because residents' properties extend to halfway across the road, all residential roads in the City are private and for the use of North Oaks residents and their invited guests.
_________
Point is there is NO public areas like in almost all other town.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whine Baby losers
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.Net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
When these other commenters go set up their own private communities, they can open it up as much as they want.
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
In any case, privacy (or the right to be left alone), is really the only "fundamental" right you can have. What do you think the Bill of Rights is? Basically it's a set of specific examples of how the federal government is not supposed to upset your apple cart.
And the underlying basis of the private ownership of property is the ability to exclude from its boundaries whoever you want. That's pretty much "privacy" right there.
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not everyone want to be public
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google decided to be nice.
Good for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @Ben Ursa
It sounds like these people actually DO own the streets and maintain them with their own resources. If, this is not the case, then that would be a defense to trespassing claims. However, it appears that the streets themselves ARE private property, too.
I didn't realize there was a right to snoop.
If they are paying for everything themselves (and it sounds like they're wealthy enough that this is the case), they have every right to close the gates and tell you to go to hell if you want to poke your nose into their business.
The mere fact that it is private property is NOT sufficient to support some sort of weird idea that you should look around just in case something illegal is going on. Would you want the cops to show up on your doorstep and say, "sir, we noticed your door is closed and curtains drawn. We need to check out your house to be sure you're not up to anything illegal."?
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You missed the point.
That's all there is to it.
Not that I really care either way, but you need to draw the line somewhere. I find it creepy enough that any stranger who visits Google maps can find pictures of my house including points of entry, an indication of wealth, and objects of interest that someone might want. Yeah, if you drive by my house you can see the same thing. I just find it a little bit frightening that some stalker from anywhere in the world can now analyze my property from the safety of their own home without ever needing to know anything about me.
Ever watch the show "To Catch a Thief"? This makes their job that much easier, and extends their range of targets to anywhere in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re
I'm sure google could get "invited" by someone that lives there for a "small fee"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
There are no public roads into North Oaks, all roads are owned by the home owners in the community. It's filled with some of the most expensive homes in the area. Yes the children of the people who live in the private community may go to a public school, but would go to nearby community schools, such as White Bear Lake or Mounds View.
I live about a 1/4 mile from the main gate to North Oaks, and it's amazing the difference in the homes. Small double bungalows where I live, with an average value of $250k to the exquisite mansions selling for well over a million in North Oaks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google decided to be nice.
It would be BOTH trespass (for entering your property without invitation) AND invasion of privacy (for taking and posting the pictures of your private domain).
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The smell of sour grapes is pretty strong here...
Who cares? Leave 'em alone! The rest of us will all go someplace else and have way more fun interacting with the world.
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
The actions above are tolerated but take a picture (which doesn't intrude) and this becomes a big violation of privacy???????????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not so fast
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so fast
In any case, I'm not so sure it's a "town" as much as a housing development. It doesn't sound like they have schools, stores, businesses, etc.
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
You think you don't have the right to close your curtains or to tell the neighbor's kids to stay off your damn lawn?
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You missed the point.
I think it's an important concept that needs to be considered in today's world. Just because I may be willing to deal with a few passersby seeing my in my robe as I pick up my Sunday newspaper from my front lawn doesn't necessarily mean I should expect to have a picture of that scene plastered all over the Internet.
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, the point is privacy...
I know, what I was saying is that if they were outside the town limits and took a picture than the town can't do squat. I can take a picture of your house without issue as long as I'm on public property and don't zoom into your window.
If Steve Jones is correct about the government paying for the streets than it calls into question if the streets are truly privet. If they were truly privet than, yes, Google was in the wrong.
If they are incorporated, doesn't that make them a corporation? A corporation can't own a city. Walt Disney got in trouble for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re
I'm sure each homeowner grants an easement to every other homeowner to use the road, however, that doesn't necessarily mean the road is effectively a "public" area in this context.
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think it should be public knowledge
So I think these people should just quit being rich snobs and suck it up. Its not like Google is watching their every move. They are just taking public information and making easier for people to access.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
# 56
The argument has already been made that if you take the pics FROM public land that is a different story then FROM private property.
I have no right to tell my neighbor he can't take pics of his garden simply because my deck is in the background, but I CAN take action against someone walking into nmy backyard and taking pics from there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can see why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's it to you?
If the town is private and doesn't show up on google maps, what value are you losing? Maybe you're actually gaining value by it being blocked because you know it's private property. If you know someone in the town I'm sure they would give you directions to their house. If you don't have permission to enter then you'll have to drive around it anyway, the service isn't hindered by it. Go get some tissue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so fast
If my neighbor and I pave a road between our homes, it's stoll a private road. If forty-nine neighbors and I purchase a large tract of land, split it up amongst ourselves, and build paths large enough for cars on our private property, it's still our private property, no matter what town it's in, or even if the tract of land is large enough to be a town all it's own. Even though we choose to build roads on our tract of land.
I see private driveways all the time, esp. to industrial areas. They are private property even though they are in a city that collects taxes. The taxes didnh't build or upkeep the road, and owners of the road that exists on thier private property did.
It's silly to say that because they have roads that they built themselves, but take tax money for a post office outside of the private area, the private area is no longer private. My city takes taxes for schools, but if my neighbor and I build a road on our property, it is our private road.
Hello?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. A constitutional right to privacy was found by the Court in the line of cases starting with Griswold and culminating in Roe v Wade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gated Community
Since their roads are not public (not funded by public money), they can determine who has access.
Pretty ritzy community so I guess they don't want unsavory people to "case" their property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
> a picture (which doesn't intrude) and this
> becomes a big violation of privacy?
Of course it intrudes. The entire town is private property. That means in order to take the pictures, Google and their employees had to physically intrude onto the private property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
> public place - an "expectation of privacy"
> does not exist.
Many of the homes at issue here can't be viewed from the public side of the property line. In order to take the pictures, someone from Google had to physically cross onto private property.
You can argue about "expectations of privacy" all you want. It doesn't change the fact that physically entering onto someone else's private land without their permission (and in contravention of posted notice) is called trespassing.
Google's employees trespassed. They were in the wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Constitutional Right to Privacy
The 'right' to privacy also only exists if you have a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy. IANAL but there would be some interpretation as to whether or not that exists even on a privately owned road. Courts have often held that arial photographs and photographs from a distance in plain view do not violate privacy laws because there is no 'reasonable expectation' available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Different take - criminal activity?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
as for private streets that is very common here. builder buys large plot of land, he builds a community of homes, some of the land may be set aside as "common ground" owned by the community and the streets are owned by the community and maintained by them. the residents have to pay fee simular to what condo owners pay though not as much generaly. It seems that most subdivisions here less than 30 years old are done this way regardless of value of property. glad my 50 year old house is on a public street, would hate to pay for snow removal and street maintenance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @Ben Ursa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: # 56
My backyard is visible on Google Maps, but that doesn't mean it's OK for someone to enter my backyard without my permission to take close-up pictures of my rose bushes.
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, the point is privacy...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Different take - criminal activity?
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @Ben Ursa
> trump our right to know or Google's.
Neither you nor Google have a right to know what the homes on those streets look like. It's private land.
> The entire town's roads are privately owned?
Yes.
> Really and truly?
Yes.
> Built and maintained and policed with NO state
> or federal funds?
Yes.
It's a small community populated by very rich people who pay for all of that themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
They own regular cameras mounted on vans that drive around taking pictures of streets. These particular vans drove into this small town, which happened to be private property (including the roads) and which was posted "No Trespassing".
Hence they were trespassing on private property.
Clear?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Go away
[ link to this | view in thread ]
they got more publicity than if they just...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Google decided to be nice.
> your backyard, then took a bunch of pictures
> of stuff that could not otherwise be seen from
> outside your property, I'd have the right to
> publish them, and I could choose whether or
> not to be "nice" when you complained?
Actually, yes, you could. Of course you'd be liable civilly for damages for the trespassing and privacy torts but the right to publish the pictures is yours, even if they weren't obtained in a kosher manner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutional Right to Privacy
> you have a 'reasonable expectation' of
> privacy. IANAL but there would be some
> interpretation as to whether or not that
> exists even on a privately owned road.
But as you correctly pointed out, this isn't an issue of privacy so one need not do the "reasonable expectation" analysis. It's an issue of trespass. The property owners clearly have the right to exclude Google's employees from access. Google didn't have permission so Google was trespassing. Privacy isn't even an issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Furthermore, nobody here has any legal or even ethical ground to stand on in trying to force them to open up. Since the entire town is made up of private property, there really is no reason for you to be there unless you live there or have been invited. Any uninvited entry into the area is trespassing, and subject to punishment by the law. By maintaining their right to privacy, they are ensuring that the community doesn't become yet another drug haven or party town or whatever else you can dream up. It's difficult to combat such things when all city streets are public, so it really actually makes sense to have all the roads privately owned and maintained. In fact, I'm willing to bet that problems with the roads get fixed much quicker than similar problems in public cities. And as it has been said, they followed the appropriate actions for having their information removed from Google, instead of whipping out a ridiculous lawsuit. Seriously, what are you guys complaining about here?
The bottom line is they own the property and are exercising their lawful right to privacy on said property, which is something to be applauded, not scorned. Just leave them alone already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: priorities
the town its self yes is small that does not mean that the surrounding area is farm land
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Google decided to be nice.
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @Ben Ursa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Different take - criminal activity?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, the point is privacy...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google decided to be nice.
> it means you DON'T have the right to publish
> those pictures.
No, you're not understanding. You could very well be liable for the torts you committed but the other party could not legally keep you from publishing the pictures because that would implicate *your* 1st Amendment rights.
Put another way, while they could get monetary damages from you , they could NOT obtain an injunction or court order barring you from publishing the pictures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Still on Microsoft Live
Huh? Check out the 216 Megapixel Camera M$ Live maps uses!
Aptly named the "UltraCam" it snaps a picture containing 14,430 x 9,420 pixels using 13 CCD's, sending them through 14 CPU's. The camera captures data at 3Gbits/sec, which led them to use two Infiniband cables rather than 14 firewire cables.
http://www.microsoft.com/ultracam/ultracam/default.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infiniband
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good news
They have a right to privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google decided to be nice.
Otherwise, that would mean that privacy is nothing. It would mean that private individuals would be forced to come up with something like a "reasonable royalty" for the use of their private information, because they would be powerless to actually stop it. So, as long as I was willing to pay the fine and pay you a little something for your trouble, I could hop your fence, snap a few pics through your basement window of you in in your latex dominatrix outfit and blast that all over the countryside. Is that what you mean?
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google decided to be nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google decided to be nice.
> someone else's private business. Just like
> you do not have the right to shout "fire!"
> in a crowded theater.
First, your "crowded theater" comment is a reference to the "clear and present danger" test that allows for punishment of speech only if there is a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury as a result of the speech in question. The danger has to be both immediate and actual. Publishing photos of someone's house on the internet doesn't even come close to meeting the clear and present danger test, hence no order barring publication would be granted.
Second, I'm not sure how you figure that a photo of the exterior of a residential home equates to "someone's private business". Sure, a trespass occurred in order to take the photo but that doesn't make the photo itself a de facto invasion of privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is alsp a property rights issue
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Right to Privacy
Agreed. Why do people find this so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeeeeeeehaw!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Faggots
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty deserve none.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty deserve none.
[ link to this | view in thread ]