Chicago (IL) - A lawsuit filed by a U.S. couple, Aaron and Christine Boring of Pennsylvania, accusing Google of invading their privacy by publishing Street View pictures of their home has been thrown out by U.S. magistrate judge, Amy Reynolds Hay. The couple had been seeking cash damages for when Google maps published picture of their home, which exists on a privately owned road.
Judge Hay dismissed every accusation individually in the 12-page ruling, concluding that the accusations were legally unsustainable, and ultimately dismissed the entire case.
She wrote: "The court is not obligated to accept inferences unsupported by facts set out in the complaint, and is not required to accept legal conclusions framed as factual allegations." In part, she concluded that the claims failed to meet the legal standard of being "highly offensive to an ordinary reasonable person."
Judge Hay even went on to arguably insult the plaintiffs by writing in her ruling: "While it is easy to imagine that many whose property appears on Google's virtual maps resent the privacy implications, it is hard to believe that any -- other than the most exquisitely sensitive -- would suffer shame or humiliation."
Previous concerns over privacy in California had prompted Google to blur out people's faces who happened to be caught in Street View photographs as the Google cars drove past.
See the original AFP article republished on Yahoo Tech.
Opinion
Whereas people who buy homes on public streets are subject to all kinds of "you live along a public way" arguments, this couple's home was on a private drive. I think this case might've been won if it was a matter of trespassing, had the required "No Trespassing" signs been posted.
I'm not sure I understand the judge's decision in this case. People buy homes on private drives for a reason. And what Google did here by entering their private drive and taking pictures seems to be in clear violation of the intent of the homeowner's rights against intrusion, as is protected by the 4th amendment:
A picture of their home was seized, in this case by a publicly held company (which is a creation of the government and one subject to its laws and limitations) and then made public for anybody to access without even the difficulty of physically going there and approaching the property. All they have to do is have a computer.
I think the Borings might have a case on appeal should they wish to pursue this matter. And I would support them.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
UPDATED: February 19, 2009 - 7:52am CST
I wanted to provide a brief update because some commenters are leaving the same responses to my 4th amendment argument.
I'm not claiming that the 4th amendment protects people in this case. I'm saying that there is an inalienable right which exists outside of any legal note or scribble, one to which the 4th amendment speaks -- namely that such an inalienable right exists, and it says that we (people, human beings, living souls) have rights, and that one of those rights we innately have is the right to be free from unnecessary intrusion by others.
A person has rights. Governments, corporations, anything created by man does not have any rights whatsoever, only privileges granted to it by man. Even our government does not have any rights and cannot do anything without the express consent of its people. The first three words of the Constitution are: "We the People," and it continues to say "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It is us, human beings, living souls, that have rights and it is us that extend privileges to our created entities, including Google.
It's all summed up by this one concept: People have rights. Corporations and governments do not. And people's rights only extend out to the point where we then begin to intrude on other people's rights. Further, there are no privileges consigned to man's created entities that have not first gone through proper, legal proceedings. Anything else is a usurping of authority.
One thing I would like to say in addition, Google has made the option available such that this couple could've simply asked to have their Street View picture deleted. However, I believe the couple was addressing the first of many future legal challenges on the larger concern of Google's cars just driving around putting pictures of everything that may be visible from a given location online so that anybody, without even the effort of physically approaching a place and seeing with their own eyes, can do so over the Internet.
I further believe at some point the legality of this kind of non-personal knowledge gathering system will be tested -- meaning the extent to which I can simply look up something online, issue it a level of trust sufficient to not have to personally verify it by visitation, and then act on it. That emerging reality will need to be tested.
Judge Hay dismissed every accusation individually in the 12-page ruling, concluding that the accusations were legally unsustainable, and ultimately dismissed the entire case.
She wrote: "The court is not obligated to accept inferences unsupported by facts set out in the complaint, and is not required to accept legal conclusions framed as factual allegations." In part, she concluded that the claims failed to meet the legal standard of being "highly offensive to an ordinary reasonable person."
Judge Hay even went on to arguably insult the plaintiffs by writing in her ruling: "While it is easy to imagine that many whose property appears on Google's virtual maps resent the privacy implications, it is hard to believe that any -- other than the most exquisitely sensitive -- would suffer shame or humiliation."
Previous concerns over privacy in California had prompted Google to blur out people's faces who happened to be caught in Street View photographs as the Google cars drove past.
See the original AFP article republished on Yahoo Tech.
Opinion
Whereas people who buy homes on public streets are subject to all kinds of "you live along a public way" arguments, this couple's home was on a private drive. I think this case might've been won if it was a matter of trespassing, had the required "No Trespassing" signs been posted.
I'm not sure I understand the judge's decision in this case. People buy homes on private drives for a reason. And what Google did here by entering their private drive and taking pictures seems to be in clear violation of the intent of the homeowner's rights against intrusion, as is protected by the 4th amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A picture of their home was seized, in this case by a publicly held company (which is a creation of the government and one subject to its laws and limitations) and then made public for anybody to access without even the difficulty of physically going there and approaching the property. All they have to do is have a computer.
I think the Borings might have a case on appeal should they wish to pursue this matter. And I would support them.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
UPDATED: February 19, 2009 - 7:52am CST
I wanted to provide a brief update because some commenters are leaving the same responses to my 4th amendment argument.
I'm not claiming that the 4th amendment protects people in this case. I'm saying that there is an inalienable right which exists outside of any legal note or scribble, one to which the 4th amendment speaks -- namely that such an inalienable right exists, and it says that we (people, human beings, living souls) have rights, and that one of those rights we innately have is the right to be free from unnecessary intrusion by others.
A person has rights. Governments, corporations, anything created by man does not have any rights whatsoever, only privileges granted to it by man. Even our government does not have any rights and cannot do anything without the express consent of its people. The first three words of the Constitution are: "We the People," and it continues to say "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It is us, human beings, living souls, that have rights and it is us that extend privileges to our created entities, including Google.
It's all summed up by this one concept: People have rights. Corporations and governments do not. And people's rights only extend out to the point where we then begin to intrude on other people's rights. Further, there are no privileges consigned to man's created entities that have not first gone through proper, legal proceedings. Anything else is a usurping of authority.
One thing I would like to say in addition, Google has made the option available such that this couple could've simply asked to have their Street View picture deleted. However, I believe the couple was addressing the first of many future legal challenges on the larger concern of Google's cars just driving around putting pictures of everything that may be visible from a given location online so that anybody, without even the effort of physically approaching a place and seeing with their own eyes, can do so over the Internet.
I further believe at some point the legality of this kind of non-personal knowledge gathering system will be tested -- meaning the extent to which I can simply look up something online, issue it a level of trust sufficient to not have to personally verify it by visitation, and then act on it. That emerging reality will need to be tested.