Forum Moderators: open
Late last week, lawyers for the now-famous Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania couple asked a federal judge to reconsider his recent decision to dismiss the privacy suit they filed last April after a Google spycar snapped photos of their swimming pool and tossed them onto the interwebs.
[theregister.co.uk...]
"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."
The issue is slavery? Maybe someone smarter than myself could explain just how any of these cited points could truly be legitimate.
Sounds to me like it might be time for a class action lawsuit against them on behalf of their own property. :)
Did I just miss the point then? heh.
Google are clearly in the wrong here, however, the complainants seem to be more stubborn than bright.
Kaled.
The ruling basically states that if they have an issue about privacy they should contact Google and resolve it. This they haven't done. Fools.
Syzygy
people in question have at their disposal standard means by which they can contact Google and ensure their privacy is not violated. They have chosen not to go through the channels available to them and instead went go to court.The ruling basically states that if they have an issue about privacy they should contact Google and resolve it. This they haven't done.
Does this have any implication on copyright violation/ scraping and noarchive and robot.txt- in that you have to OPT OUT of having your copyright violated. By default, Google steals and republishes your content.
Does this mean G cannot be found to be in the wrong, as they have a mechanism to rectify this data theft?
What if I drove around taking pictures indescriminately, but discarded most of them and published the 'interesting' ones on soft #*$! photo sites. Would that be allowed? I assume not, but wheres the differentiation?
"The Borings do not dispute that they have allowed the relevant images to remain on Google Street View, despite the availability of a procedure for having them removed from view," wrote Judge Reynolds Hay.The publicity has actually perpetuated dissemination of the Borings' name and location, and resulted in frequent re-publication of the Street View images, the judge concluded.
"The plaintiffs' failure to take readily available steps to protect their own privacy and mitigate their alleged pain suggests to the Court that the intrusion and that their suffering were less severe than they contend," wrote Judge Reynolds Hay.
Darned attention seekers.
Syzygy
Whilst photographic images may be taken of private areas (such as gardens) that are viewable from public areas (such as the highway) the publication of such images without consent shall be limited to a resolution not greater than one pixel per inch.
Naturally, the maximum resolution permitted could be argued over, but 1 ppi is sensible since objects such as cars and buildings would be identifiable but people would not.
With legislation of this sort, everyone would know where they stand and there would be no need for silly court cases.
Kaled.
This would also put some of the paparazzi out of business - shame!
With legislation of this sort, everyone would know where they stand
Well, we'd know where they stand but we wouldn't be able to make out their face anymore. ;)
That's how I read it anyway and I'd compliment the judge on a smart decision.
Could google wander around inside public museums photographing all the art and then publish a museum guide map, on which to sell its advertising and not pay the copyright holders or at a minimum request their permission?
Seems like Google creates property out of breaching millions of home owners rights.
[edited by: Deno at 12:04 am (utc) on Mar. 8, 2009]
Please do specify...
Syzygy
