Boring Case Against Google Revived... Just A Bit
from the not-so-boring? dept
We've been covering the case of a couple named Boring (no, seriously, that's their last name) who got upset and sued Google after they found pictures of their house in Google's Street View offering -- even though Google lets anyone remove images they dislike. The couple claimed that the images invaded their privacy and devalued their home (how an accurate photo could devalue the home is an open question). The case was quickly dismissed, but the Borings appealed, in lovely language about how this was about Google trampling on their right to privacy. The appeals court has thrown out most of the case, but actually is allowing the claim of trespassing to move forward in the lower court. Indeed, many did point out in our comments that it appeared that the Google vehicle may have driven onto the Borings' driveway in the process of photographing the home. Of course, proving any actual damage from the trespass may prove a bit more difficult.
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: borings, google maps, street view, trespassing
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.
See this usecase - thieves are allowed to steal your belongings UNLESS you opt out of the thieves services :)
Everything should be opt-in AND NOT opt-out.
How oppressive and how mockery of justice and law that they can do anything and then ask to opt out. How amazing the inaction of all the governments and ngos and people that they have not been banned yet.
Googles daylight robbery incidence - they dare to digital copy copyrighted books stating they entered agreement with libraries which however cannot violate (c) notice in each book forbidding digital copy. See http://www.book-grab.com/
How much we must worship and fanboy another MS or something MUCH more worse than that? Will techdirt please show serailly the evil side of this EVIL ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.
They can even mark your site 'malware' unless you opt out.
Their bots can read your mail.
They can steal and scan copyrighted books.
They are at present the largest threat to privacy.
You are not aware most things are opt out only. And that is mockery of the law. Breaking of the law which they can do becoz of the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The public
But photo's taken from a private vantage that require trespassing to take? I would find that quite a valid complaint to make and would hope that a party found guilty of it be punished somewhat more than a token dollar.
Demanding that people prove tangible harm is silly. Is one to be allowed to enter properties, stand outside a window and photograph occupants as it causes no tangible harm but the trepass and invasion of privacy that seems all but admitted in this case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The public
So, if I sue you for your comment in the order of $50,000 due to "psychological distress" you won't ask me to show actual damages?
Sweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The public
Just because you don't like what other people are doing doesn't mean you get money from them. Money doesn't magically solve all of life's problems. In fact, it's at the root of most of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
haha yours does to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]