By now everyone has heard about the new Google Street View. While this new Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) feature may be unnerving to some and even patently offensive to others, it's my solemn duty to inform you that legally, Google is doing nothing wrong. For the purposes of Fourth Amendment searches, this particular scenario has been put to rest. You see, the Supreme Court decided long ago that any area that can be plainly viewed from any place in which a person has a right to be, retains no right of privacy for the area being viewed. Simply put, a cop can stand on the sidewalk and gawk all he wants toward the front of your house. Anything within his view is fair game.
Additionally, the court then determined that it is permissible for that cop to use magnifying lenses to enhance his ability to see. This means he can stand on the sidewalk with binoculars and peer into any place he'd like (within reason of course). Furthermore, he may fly over your home in an airplane with a camera and spy into any space available to his line of sight. The Supreme Court said he can, and so Google can too.
My advice to you dear friends is to simply remain aware of the fact that you might possibly be viewed and recorded at any time. You may wish to remember also that any cell phone communications you have carry no privacy privileges. Any of your internet access is readily available for instant scrutiny, and any public establishment you enter has a right to record your image and pretty much do with it as it pleases. At least we don't have those nasty British hovering camera drones to deal with, or at least I haven't seen any here yet.
If you would like some more input on the Google Street View issue, here are the observations of Tom Barlow, Sheldon Liber, and Peter Cohan. I hope you enjoy them as much as I have. In the meantime:
Smile! You're on not-so-candid camera!
Will Rich Ross really have a positive impact on Disney's movie operations?
Consumers sick of recession, may spend extra on holidays
Corrections, seasonality and Santa Claus
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-03-2007 @ 12:47PM
Robin Diane Goldstein said...
i'm not so sure its perfectly legal, and i'm not so sure there won't be litigation...
there is a fundamental difference between the need for law enforcement to be able to observe a public space, and the world-wide public display (and potential humiliation) of those who have not consented to have their photographs taken...
there is a reason that the tv networks don't show the faces of people they can't get a release from... from leno to cops... people who haven't signed a release are blurred out... and those obese folks who are shown whenever there's a report on eating? why do we only see them from the neck down? because under the law there is a need to balance rights... no right is absolute... (fire in a crowded theater, etc.)
the image that brought it home for me is the picture of the young woman, bending over putting something into the front seat of her car (package? child?) and you can see her thong... this is clearly a violation of this woman's privacy... to take that image and then post it for, literally, the world to see?
in addition, in the UK, where CCTV cameras are widely used, there are *warnings* that say the area is under surveillance... in other words, you have the right to 'opt out' before your image is taken... under g**gle's system, you can only opt out -afterwards-.
i'm troubled that here in the US, people are so willing to give up their privacy... for the government... for commerce... it is something precious and at the core of a healthy democracy... knowing that you may be photographed, without your knowledge or permission, and that you have find that photograph posted across the world will have a chilling effect on behavior.
this seems, to me, another example of "we have cool technology... why not use it"
i think g**gle needs to retain a full-time ethics team to look at the social responsibility inherent in the things they do... i signed up for a gmail account, so i know my private details are running through g**gle's computers... i didn't sign up to have them take pictures of me, my home and my neighborhood, and post them on the internet.
we shouldn't have to "opt out"... they should be required to get our permission if we want to "opt in"
robin
6-04-2007 @ 1:27AM
Fred said...
Check out all of the Street View legal implications found here:
http://www.laudontech.com/StreetView/streetview.html
6-04-2007 @ 10:20AM
Sheldon L said...
Gary,
A few more thoughts:
1) While police can do as you say, there have been legitimate cases of harassment.
2) There are laws against "peeping Toms" so not everyone will be granted the same breath as the police.
3) Google is a commercial enterprise and as such will find there are restrictions on what it can do with certain likenesses, etc.
4) There are rules against tresspassing and some pictures might infringe on occasion.
5)Taking pictures of minors may test the waters of societies tolerance as well as the supreme courts revisting certain rulings.
There are many more considerations...we shall see...
6-03-2007 @ 12:48PM
Geotrotter said...
I added all the best "Google Street View" here : http://www.geo-trotter.com/cat-street-view.php.