stories filed under: "borings"
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Dec 3rd 2010 4:01pm
Just a quick post here, closing the loop on a story we've covered for a few years. You may recall that a couple with the surname Boring, sued Google, when they discovered their house was on Street View -- saying that it violated their privacy and "devalued" their property. The court quickly tossed the lawsuit, noting that there was no evidence of damage from the photos, and Google offered easy-to-use tools to opt-out of Street View. The Borings appealed, focusing on a trespassing claim -- saying that the car went up a private road to photograph their house -- and the court was sympathetic that there may have been some trespassing, but not much harm seemed likely. So, it looks like the whole matter is now over, since Google has agreed to pay the couple a grand total of $1 to settle the claims and move on with everyone's lives.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Feb 1st 2010 5:09pm
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.
by Mike Masnick
Wed, Mar 4th 2009 3:20am
from the eloquence-means-nothing-under-the-law dept
Last month, a court totally dismissed the lawsuit filed by Aaron and Christine Boring, who had complained about Google's Street View images of their home, suggesting that the company had driven onto their private driveway to get the photos. The court pointed out, correctly, that the Borings had no case because they could have availed themselves of the simple mechanism on Google to remove the images. Still, the Borings are now appealing, and turning this into quite the epic battle of small guy vs. big company:
"Whether the trespass is by a foreign king, or the royalty of big business, does not matter. The Borings, such as our American forefathers in millennia past, are entitled to proclaim, 'Google, Don't Tread On Me.'"That seems to be overplaying their hand just a bit. As is the claim that the original ruling made them "Google slaves":
"This Court tells Google that it is okay to enter onto a person's private property without permission. I would not teach that rule to my child. This Court's ruling makes our private property a Google Slave; our property is no longer our own: it is forced to work for another, against its will, without compensation, for the profit of another. The Federal Court should free slavery, not create it."It's not like Google took over their property or anything. The Google Maps car looks like it pulled into, and backed out of their driveway -- which it may have confused as another road. It did no damage, and the end result -- the photo -- could have been easily removed by the family. This is hardly a case of a massive trampling of anyone's rights.