Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Victory for Google in battle over web photos

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 February 2009
A COUPLE have failed in their attempt to sue Google for invasion of privacy after their house was photographed for use on an internet tool being created by the company.
Aaron and Christine Boring accused Google of violating their privacy for showing their home on an internet mapping application called Street View.

Cars are equipped with cameras to take 360-degree images, which are used to give online glimpses of
locations when users click on a map.

Google is gradually photographing every street in the United States and has started an extension of the project in the UK, including Scotland.

Mr and Mrs Boring accused Google, in a court in Pennsylvania, of privacy violation, negligence, unjust enrichment and trespassing.

They claimed that Google had caused them "mental suffering" and decreased the value of their home.

The photographs at the centre of the lawsuit, which was launched last year, were taken at the foot of the Borings' driveway and showed their house, a pool area and detached garage.

Signs marked the road as private.

The couple were seeking more than £17,000 in compensation and damages.

Judge Amy Hay concluded that the Borings, from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, could not prove they had suffered as a result of having their home photographed, particularly as they had not contacted Google to request that the images be removed. The Borings also made public their home address on court documents.

"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," said Judge Hay.

"The plaintiffs' failure to take readily available steps to protect their privacy and mitigate their alleged pain suggests to the court that the intrusion and their suffering were less severe than they contend."

Google said in a statement that it respected individual privacy and offered various protections to people concerned about the Street View tool.

"We are pleased that the judge agreed this suit was without merit," the firm added. "We blur faces in Street View and we offer easy-to-use removal tools so users can decide for themselves whether or not they want a given image to appear in Street View."

David Goodbrand, a partner at Burness LLP in Edinburgh, who has a specialism in privacy law, said he was not surprised the Borings lost the case. I don't think their privacy was breached by Google taking a photo of their house," he said.

He said if the photo had been published alongside other information that made it clear who lived in the house, the claim would have been more likely to be successful.

He said Google was careful to avoid breaching privacy, so similar claims in the future would be unlikely to succeed.

"They make sure everyone's faces are blurred out," Mr Goodbrand said. "If they use that technique to make sure no person is readily identifiable, then I think they are doing as much as they need to make sure they are covered in the future."



The full article contains 522 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 February 2009 9:39 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Google
 
1

Rambo The Jambo,

Edinburgh 20/02/2009 08:23:38
Begs the question, why is Google spending what must be hundreds of thousands, or millions, on photographing every street in the US and elsewhere, except to sell the images to third parties and make millions out of it.

Surely Google should be paying the residents for the privilege of using these images for commercial gain.
2

ddmc,

20/02/2009 09:12:44
Funny how if you take a photo of a copper, or a train station, airport etc etc, they threaten you with camera confiscation & terrorism charges, but goggle can photograph the world & that's OK, what if during another terror attack (or just any old crime)its noted that goggle mapping was used to plan the attack, would Goggle be prosecuted & the imaging data be confiscated. I wonder if there filming in Vauxhall or Millbank where the security services live ?

Just another invasion of privacy supported by Nu-Lie-bour !
3

Nebulous,

Aberdeen 20/02/2009 09:19:19
1. Have you looked at google earth?

Freely available - gives an amazing level of detail in built-up levels in particular. We've had hours of entertainment looking at places and following routes - all for free.

4

drunken proffet,

Tassy 20/02/2009 11:07:02
I understand their complaint. My house photo, which I may add cost me nothing, and is available for all my friends round the world, was taken before I got the roof painted. Cheez, how can I cope with that? I have to keep my standards up, should I sue or go for a more up to date photo? The mind boggles.
5

Lianachan,

Highlands 20/02/2009 13:53:14
#3 Google Earth is amazing. I wish it was around when I was at school, because it's got "use me for your geogrphy homework" written all over it. I use it regularly to plan and assist with archaeological projects.

While I do love Google Earth, I do sympathise with the family's concerns regarding invasion of privacy (while laughing at their surname, naturally).
6

Inquisitive,

Edinburgh 20/03/2009 01:18:15
Why can we get a fantastic view of my house but no access to the centre of the Royal Mile, with only a glimpse of St Giles? Since when was my home on the tourist route?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.