Previous Post
Our comments and trackback policy You Link We Follow, You Comment We Promote
Google has been a spotlight with accusations, trials and claims of doing one thing against the law or another (let’s keep the results aside for now) and we have just another nail dug in this wall of Google. The reason turns out to be Google Street View service invading the privacy of a Pittsburgh couple. The present response by Google of not doing anything to harm their privacy comes in the wake of the accusations field by the couple in April.
Google says that the claims fail for many reasons; the most basic being the fact that almost any passerby can get a view of ones home as they walk across a street and that Google has done nothing so as to bring the house inside out for the public. Google said (As reported by Stephen Shankland):
Today’s satellite-image technology means that…complete privacy does not exist…
And with something more:
Plaintiffs live in the 21st century United States, where every step upon private property is not deemed by law to be an actionable trespass…Unless there is a clear expression such as a gate, fence, or ‘keep out’ sign indicating that the public is not permitted to enter, anyone may approach a home by a walkway, driveway, or any other route commonly used by visitors, without liability for trespass.
Now how justified could this be? Does that mean living in the 21st century United States leaves you with nothing more than being public? If this is so I bet there should be nothing wrong with the idea of ‘secret cameras’, and its funny, if this blurt is to be accepted then there is no such thing as ‘secret’ cameras, but mere cameras watching over you.
Ridiculous it appears, Google talked about putting a fence to ward of public taking snaps and putting them on display over the net; to this the couple talked about the road being ‘private’ and right there we have Google being forced to gobble its words down. The issue more important here is that how recklessly Google has dealt with the matter and calling the very people who use their service as ‘people who extract money from wealthy companies’. Google added:
When plaintiffs discovered these images, rather than using the simple removal option Google affords, they sued Google for invasion of privacy, trespass, negligence, and conversion. Plaintiffs seek damages form ‘mental suffering’ and diminished property value supposedly caused by the public accessibility of the photos. They claim these injuries even though similar photos of their home were already publicly available on the Internet, and even though they drew exponentially greater attention to the images in question by filing and publicizing the lawsuit while choosing not to remove the images of their property from the Street View service…
Another one of those contradictory remarks; why does Google put up a ‘remove’ option if there’s nothing wrong at doing this? Looks like the cat has got a bone stuck in its policy. And all it reveals is one thing; Google is pretty stubborn at not bringing any harm at all to its ‘Street View’ and dismiss the suit instead of going in over for a quiet settlement.
