Montreal woman wins cash from Google for Street View cleavage

[- jigz -]

Google has been ordered to pay $2,250 to a city woman after an image of her cleavage showed up on Google Street View five years ago.

The unnamed woman was photographed sitting on the front steps of a Montreal home wearing a low-cut top and checking her phone on May 8, 2009. Five months later, when the images were uploaded to Google's Street View maps, the woman was horrified to discover her picture on it.

 

 

In the photo, her face was blurred out, but she argued in court she was easily recognizable and the photo was embarrassing because her tank top had slipped down to reveal more of her right breast than she had intended.

After the image hit Street View, the woman said some of her colleagues commented on the photo and teased her.

She contacted Google to have the image removed, but it took until 2011 for Google to completely blur out her home.

The woman sued Google seeking $7,000 in damages.

Google claimed the woman waived her right to privacy by sitting in her front yard where she was easily visible, but a Quebec judge disagreed.

In his Oct. 4 ruling, Judge Alain Breault said the woman "experienced a significant loss of personal modesty and dignity," and had to ensure "malicious comments and humiliation" at work. He ordered the company to pay her $2,250.

On its website, Google says it takes a number of steps to "help protect the privacy and anonymity of individuals" including blurring faces and licence plates.

 

Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/29/montreal-woman-wins-cash-from-google-for-street-view-cleavage

[+Warwagon MVC]

Then stop wearing stuff that shows your cleavage you idiot! Slipped down my ass.

[FloatingFatMan]

And by making the complaint, she ensured 1000's more people would gawk at her cleavage than if she'd just ignored it.

[techbeck]

And by making the complaint, she ensured 1000's more people would gawk at her cleavage than if she'd just ignored it.

 

Yea, dumb woman.  Now everyone with an internet connection can see it and view it.

[trag3dy]

She could be standing there naked and it wouldn't matter. She didn't give them permission to put her picture on the internet.

 

Last I checked the front steps to most peoples homes isn't public property.

[Tigurinn]

[Dot Matrix]

"Google claimed the woman waived her right to privacy"

 

Yeah, no. We have a right to privacy, and Google needs to recognize this. If Google continues this bullying BS, it's not going to end well for them.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

 

Google claimed the woman waived her right to privacy by sitting in her front yard where she was easily visible

 

Oh really. Where did she sign that she is willing to do that?

[Aergan]

And by making the complaint, she ensured 1000's more people would gawk at her cleavage than if she'd just ignored it.

 

Streisand effect?

[ncoday]

Oh really. Where did she sign that she is willing to do that?

 

Inside your house, you have privacy. Outside where someone walking on public property can see you? Nope...

 

Surprised she got any money. Google likely figured it was cheaper to pay her off than continue fighting it in court.

[mstefanik]

Two words: Streisand effect.

 

Edit: And I see Aergan beat me to the punch there.

[techbeck]

Surprised she got any money. Google likely figured it was cheaper to pay her off than continue fighting it in court.

 

Sounds like a quick cash grab to me.  If she wasnt wearing a low cut shirt, doubt she would have gotten anything.

[SierraSonic]

Comparing this to women to others being "harassed" and stating that clothing doesn't make a difference, this was won clearly because of the choice of clothing in public view.

[Nogib]

Dumb ###### like this need to be punched in the face for the betterment of humanity.

[+Warwagon MVC]

"Google claimed the woman waived her right to privacy"

 

Yeah, no. We have a right to privacy, and Google needs to recognize this. If Google continues this bullying BS, it's not going to end well for them.

 

Ya, no. She's sitting OUTSIDE on her front stepsm so she waved her right to privacy.

 

If Microsoft did something like this you would be singing a completely different tune.

 

 

Furthermore, the government?s assertion that Mr. Vargas did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his front yard is forceful.  The government?s response brief states:  ?Misplaced confidence that your actions in the open have gone unnoticed is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.?  Indeed, a passerby, let alone an officer conducting surveillance, could have observed Mr. Vargas firing his weapon without Mr. Vargas?s noticing.  So, naturally, under existing Fourth Amendment case law, the government appears to have the better argument.  Generally, a video camera aimed at a home is not a search unless it captures an area that is not otherwise in plain view. See, e.g.,

http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/the-forum/how-private-is-your-front-yard-court-considers-warrantless-police-filming/

[SierraSonic]

Dumb ###### like this need to be punched in the face for the betterment of humanity.

While I understand that this whole PC thing is getting thrown out of proportion, the problem is made a million times worse due to ignorant comments along the lines of physical or emotional abuse that change the name of the game from pointless bitching on their part to threatening on our part. Giving them any validation in their complaints should not be the goal.

[x-scratch]

 i asked google to remove me from a google street image & they said no

 

i should of flipped off the car when i saw it

Then stop wearing stuff that shows your cleavage you idiot! Slipped down my ass.

 

 

well she was in her own yard so she has every right to so stop being a muppet

[SierraSonic]

well she was in her own yard so she has every right to so stop being a muppet

Did she ensure her right to visual privacy by putting up a privacy fence? No? Ok then.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Public_property

• Photography may be prohibited or restricted within an area of property by the property owner.^[39] At the same time, a property owner generally cannot restrict the photographing of the property by individuals who are not located within the bounds of the property.^[39]

[trag3dy]

Did she ensure her right to visual privacy by putting up a privacy fence? No? Ok then.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Public_property

 

This is right under that part:

 

Many places have laws prohibiting photographing private areas under a person's clothing without that person's permission. This also applies to any filming of another within a public restroom or locker room. Some jurisdictions have completely banned the use of a camera phone within a restroom or locker room in order to prevent this

 

 

And none of that says it applies to Canada.

[SierraSonic]

Under

Cleavage is not an under garment area, privacy is as loosely defined for Canada as it is in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Eight_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy

 

 

 

Likewise, a visitor to a dwelling house does not enjoy the same expectation of privacy as a permanent occupant.^[3]

A reasonable expectation of privacy generally exists in a hotel room, although the expectation of privacy in a hotel room diminishes in circumstances where the occupant indiscriminately invites members of the public inside.^[4]

Information which does not "tend to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual" is usually not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. For this reason, utility records are generally not subject to an expectation of privacy, nor are heat patterns which can be detected from outside a private building.^[5][6] Garbage placed at the curb for pickup is considered in law to be abandoned, and therefore fails to engage a reasonable privacy interest.^[7]

Basically, inside the house, privacy: outside the house, no privacy. Though the whole thing changes when you start building privacy fences, which at that point, you can extend the field of privacy upto the fence.

[Hum]

I got $10,000 for my butt crack :wacko:

[mstefanik]

Yeah, no. We have a right to privacy, and Google needs to recognize this. If Google continues this bullying BS, it's not going to end well for them.

 

You can argue about a right for privacy, but I fail to understand how there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy if you're sitting on the front stairs to your house, facing a public street where anyone walking down the sidewalk or diving by (obviously) could see you. It's not like Google was using a telephoto lens, taking pictures of her in her bedroom.

[Torolol]

privacy

Seems like nice camera lens there, still able to zoom with good clarity of cleavage,

I not convinced if my normal eye can even do that, even if i walk on the street in front of her house.

[madd-hatter]

I don't blame her, I blame the court systems.