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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 1st, 2010 @ 4:29pm

    I suspect this case may be a hoax perpetrated by headline writers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 1st, 2010 @ 7:53pm

    Award them a dollar, a pat on the head and tell them to get along.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Harabi, Feb 2nd, 2010 @ 4:57am

    Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.

    Google is undoubtedly tresspasser. They have the evil money to twist things to appear not as 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 ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 2nd, 2010 @ 6:15am

      Re: Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.

      Privacy is already opt-in. Simply opt not to put things in public places if you do not wish them to be seen. If even the front of your house is something you wish to keep secret, then you face a difficult challenge, and that's not really my problem.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Bouman, Feb 2nd, 2010 @ 9:21pm

        Re: Re: Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.

        Google can index your site - unless you opt out.
        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Alan Gerow (profile), Feb 2nd, 2010 @ 8:41am

      Re: Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.

      The time honored system of opting your house out of public view has been a fence.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Fentex, Feb 2nd, 2010 @ 5:07am

    The public

    I agree that there's little reason to be upset about phots taken from a public vnatage and availabel online.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Feb 2nd, 2010 @ 9:49am

      Re: The public

      Demanding that people prove tangible harm is silly.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Alan Gerow (profile), Feb 2nd, 2010 @ 2:14pm

      Re: The public

      The thing is, trespassing is a criminal offense. For them to receive money, they would have to prove damages. The best can hope for now is to press charges against the person who was driving the Google car, in which case that person could spend some time in jail and they would receive no money.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        ChuckRunyan (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re: The public

        Trespassing has been a cause of action in a civil suit under the common law, which we inherited from England, for probably a thousand years. In fact, in this case the judge is letting the trespassing claim move forward.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2010 @ 2:51pm

    woooooooooooow! this is so stupid

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2010 @ 2:51pm

    woooooooooooow! this is so stupid

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2010 @ 2:52pm

    copycat!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2010 @ 2:52pm

    wow your so mature......

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2010 @ 2:54pm

    wait, does my name say coward...........!!!!!!!!!?????!
    haha yours does to

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    hi im bored, May 1st, 2010 @ 2:54pm

    like i said soooooooo mature

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    not you, May 1st, 2010 @ 2:55pm

    this site is stupid

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This