Seriously, and The Smoking Gun has a point about suing the county as well. After all, the pictures of their private residence is there for the whole world to see, if they wanted to, on the county's web site. As well as the price they paid, etc...
I wonder how many people put the address into their Google maps, to see for themselves, especially since their address is on the court paper work.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Why can't people just go out and make money the old fashioned way, and get a job, instead of going for the fast and easy buck. Must be too taxing, I guess.
I sincerely hope the judge that gets this case throws it out, and then reprimands the lawyer for filing such a stupid, STUPID, lawsuit.
So do you want to hear how I really feel? :)
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones. ~ Bertrand Russell
Hi! Glad you like the NaBloPoMo badge! Good luck with April :)
ReplyDeletePS: Love the Disney picture at the bottom :)
Here via Blog365:
ReplyDeleteHere's my take.
Google took a picture of their home without permission and without compensation and shared it with anybody who has web access.
It isn't a newsworthy address, so there is a reasonable and rightful expectation of privacy.
I think Google is screwed on this.
What gives makes you think Google has the right to take this picture?
Ah, but you didn't read the whole story. The county where they live, Allegheny I think, has pictures of their property on there web page as well. Along with a whole lot more personal information. Besides what kind of privacy is being violated anyway. Did you know their address before they filed the paperwork and it was made public? Did you even care? I think that they are looking for a quick buck and found a lawyer looking for the same thing. Google may or may not be screwed, I really don't think that $25,000 is going to break their bank, nor would the associated court costs. Who knows Google may just end up settling because it is only $25,000.
ReplyDeleteAs for picture taking... It's a free country. You can take a picture of anything or anybody anytime you would like (just ask Britney Spears), the only exception would be things that are top secret, government type stuff. That actually has something to do with national security, etc.
Thanks for visiting.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The county may have a legitimate and legal purpose for posting their photos. That's a different issue.
ReplyDeleteDealing just with Google issue:
No I didn't care about their address. But they have stated that they moved to this address for privacy. We all have a right to privacy.
Unless we are doing something that is against the law. Then there are ways to get around the privacy issue.
You cannot take pictures willy-nilly of private property or people. It is an invasion of property.
Notoriety (Britney or POTUS or Mayor) means you give up a certain level of privacy - yet to be determined where that line should be drawn.
Suppose Google took a picture of the home and a naked form was in the window. Still OK?
$25,000 won't kill Google, but if case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs all the way thru appeals, think how many others will sue.
And as a matter of fact, Google just got a ruling from the DOD that top secret facilities can be included on their maps.
However, Google did agree to limit views on places they have decided are issues of national security.
bah, should read " invasion of privacy (not property)
ReplyDeleteSo, you honestly don't believe that they are just trying to make a quick buck?
ReplyDeleteI also bet they are shooting for a jury trial and are hoping to make $25 million versus the original $25K in the lawsuit.
As for naked figures in the window, I thought that the viewer wouldn't allow you to scroll up past a certain level. Also, whenever I have seen people in the pictures they tend to be a blurry rendition of some human form.
Of course, I don't want my naked form to be seen by the public, blurry form or not. I'm shy that way.
I'll have to look into the whole 'invasion of privacy' issue. I didn't think that taking pictures of somebody's residence constituted that, but I honestly don't know.
Of course, I don't know their motivation. But it seems with Google's deep pockets that $25,000 is way too low for a "quick buck" scam.
ReplyDeleteAsk for $10 million and settle for $25,000.
Re: recognizable people. If you look at any city street view, you can see faces. I guess Google makes the decision to pixelate images.
Interesting case to be sure.
Time has an interesting article here: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1631957,00.html
ReplyDeleteOne gentleman even says (paraphrase, cause the memory isn't as good as it used to be I guess) that he doesn't think what Google is doing is illegal, just rude.
The main thing that the suit does have going for it, is the fact (if it is a fact) that the rode was clearly marked as a 'private road' then they may have something there.
Oh well, I am sure that a lot of people will be watching how this turns out - maybe 'Big Brother' will go down for the count. Because if Google can't do it, then why can the government?
Gummit can do it because of Patriot Act.
ReplyDeleteI'll read the Time link. Thanks.
People will sue over ANYTHING!!! The # of frivilous lawsuits is just nuts & IMHO this one is frivilous.
ReplyDelete