main
Report a problem

Boring lawsuit against Google dismissed

Matthew Hopson   on 19 February 2009 - 15:35 · 24 comments & 5229 views

Advertisement (Why?)
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."

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 24 additional comments
(2 replies) #1 Navan on 19 Feb 2009 - 15:49
Boring is actually a last name? o.O
#1.1 Airlink on 19 Feb 2009 - 17:51
Yes, but it's a very boring last name.
#1.2 Krome on 19 Feb 2009 - 19:02
lol
#2 Kaemon on 19 Feb 2009 - 15:52
yea exactly...lmao
I thought it was part of the title...o.O
#3 Michael1406 on 19 Feb 2009 - 15:52
Boring is actually quite apt - they tried to get free money from Google, but failed because Google prevented this sort of thing.
#4 P1R4T3 on 19 Feb 2009 - 16:01
yawn... thats boring :p
(1 reply) #5 vetneufuse on 19 Feb 2009 - 16:24
how in the world does a picture of your home "dilute" the value of your home?
#5.1 NeoandGeo on 19 Feb 2009 - 17:12
Very easily depending on how your house looks in the picture.
(2 replies) #6 Edrick Smith on 19 Feb 2009 - 16:43
So this lawsuit gets thrown out but the guy suing the new york transit system for being [< snipped > - CalumJR] and loosing his leg isnt?

Last edited by CalumJR on 19 Feb 2009 - 17:47
#6.1 Shiranui on 20 Feb 2009 - 01:40
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'.
#6.2 CalumJR on 22 Feb 2009 - 16:50
@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...
(2 replies) #7 Ogmius on 19 Feb 2009 - 16:44
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.
#7.1 +dead.cell on 19 Feb 2009 - 16:52
Which would just attract more attention and make people really curious as to who lives there.
#7.2 gadean on 19 Feb 2009 - 16:53
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.
#8 ajua on 19 Feb 2009 - 16:51
I was just about to write that calling a lawsuit boring was disrespectful lol
#9 Max1978 on 19 Feb 2009 - 17:26
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.
#10 alan on 19 Feb 2009 - 17:50
poor mr boring
make him go back to his boring life insted of trying to make money from little things that are stupid
(1 reply) #11 atari800 on 19 Feb 2009 - 19:00
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
#11.1 Akaruz on 19 Feb 2009 - 19:24
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 )
(1 reply) #12 C_Guy on 19 Feb 2009 - 20:29
"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.
#12.1 +dead.cell on 19 Feb 2009 - 22:14
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.
#13 a1kashur on 19 Feb 2009 - 20:38
People will do anything to sue someone and get some money...anything.
#14 skynetXrules on 19 Feb 2009 - 21:50
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..
#15 :: Lyon :: on 19 Feb 2009 - 23:15
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

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)