Boring lawsuit against Google dismissed

A lawsuit made by a couple who claim that Google's Street View violated their privacy, has been dismissed by a federal judge, according to BBC News.

Christine and Aaron Boring claimed that the photographs, taken from the foot of their driveway, were an invasion of privacy and trespassing. The couple said that the photographs had caused the couple "mental suffering" and diluted the value of their home. Mr and Mrs Boring sought $25,000 in damages.

In her 12-page decision, Judge Amy Reynolds Hay of US District Court for Western Pennsylvania wrote, "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."

Google provides procedures for removing pictures from Street View upon request. The Borings failed to take advantage of these procedures, a point not missed by Judge Reynolds Hay.

"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," she wrote.

"Furthermore, they have failed to bar others' access to the images by eliminating their address from the pleadings, or by filing this action under seal."

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."

The California based company said in a statement that it respects people's privacy and blurs identifiable faces and license plates caught by one of Google's camera cars and provides tools to request the removal of pictures from Street View.

They said, "It is unfortunate the parties involved decided to pursue litigation instead of making use of these tools."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New 52 in 1 UDMA card reader from Japan

Next Story

Google Earth reveals US base in Pakistan

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Maybe they were caught doing "something" and people can look at the picture on Google map? Other than that, it seems that they are just after Google's money

and another the lawsuit against Google for monopolizing practice in search market! welcome to lawsuit world google! we mostly the loser sue cause they fail..

"It is unfortunate the parties involved decided to pursue litigation instead of making use of these tools."

Uhhhh no, not really. While I agree that they didn't have enough "mental suffering" to spark a lawsuit they shouldn't have to be constantly checking Google for images and requesting them to be deleted. If everyone had to do that we'd waste hours every day running around in circles... "Am I on this site? This site? This site?"

Google has a weird elitest entitlement complex where they think that can do whatever they want. Throwing out this lawsuit is not going to help the situation.

What situation? The view of your house that anyone can see passing by? Faces are blurred, license plates are blurred, if you want your stuff down, there's a procedure for doing so.

Also, what other sites are you talking about here? As far as I know, Google is the only one attempting such a project. But yes, let's go ahead and use this lame idea that you can sue whoever for putting images of your house on the internet and elsewhere. Would you be able to sue the local news stations if your house is in the background where they are filming about a murder/accident/etc? I mean, you can't watch every news station 24/7 can you? And is there even a procedure for requesting such footage down, or blurring of your home?

It doesn't make sense. It's public property anyway, not yours. Unless you have your land in allodial title, it does not belong to you entirely. Besides, anyone willing to make this much fuss for that amount of money clearly has one goal in mind, and the concerns of their house being on the internet is probably the last of their worries.

I understand you don't like Google, but defending these greedy people is probably the worst thing you could do.

I hoped they would have won. If they did, I'd do the same. I could use a quick $25000, actually I would get $50000. One settlement for the street view and one for the picture of my roof in Google Earth

atari800 said,
I hoped they would have won. If they did, I'd do the same. I could use a quick $25000, actually I would get $50000. One settlement for the street view and one for the picture of my roof in Google Earth

and why dont ya go further and try the Airlines that pass over your house ( they can see your roof , Nasa Satellites , your government Sats also , oh and also Microsoft Maps :P )

poor mr boring
make him go back to his boring life insted of trying to make money from little things that are stupid

That's what we all need to watch out for - if, say, you're walking down the street with a mistress, and see a Google van, hide immediately, you'll be sorry if you don't.

Just another case of someone trying to get free money. Its not like google broke into their house and took pictures of the inside of their house. The view that is on google streets is the same thing that anyone would see just driving by their house. If they are going to QQ that much about people seeing their house, they should put a big giant fence around it so no one can see.

Nooooo!!! People wouldn't scoop down to such a level! :)

Scumbags. Everyone's always trying to make an easy buck. Good to hear that the case was dismissed.

So this lawsuit gets thrown out but the guy suing the new york transit system for being [< snipped > - CalumJR] and loosing his leg isnt?

Edrick Smith said,
So this lawsuit gets thrown out but the guy suing the new york transit system for being
[< snipped > - CalumJR
]
and loosing his leg isnt?

How about a filter for dweebs who can't spell 'lose'.

@Shiranui -

If you are going to call somebody a "dweeb", please make sure you don't refer directly to another member.

Luckily, you haven't here, but with a comment like this, I can see you breaking this rule in the future...