Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Appeals court lets Google Street View suit continue

Expand Messages
  • michel thoby
    Don t know if this was already reported on this list.
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Don't know if this was already reported on this list.

      <<29 January: A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit that a
      Pennsylvania couple filed against Google after a driver for its
      Street View service took a panoramic photograph of their secluded
      home.>>

      More:
      http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10444755-38.html

      Regards,

      Michel Thoby
    • Eduardo Hutter
      Even in the case they win, it shouldn t be something for us as photographers to worry. If what we can read from the excerpts from the couple s lawyers hold
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Even in the case they win, it shouldn't be something for us as
        photographers to worry. If what we can read from the excerpts from the
        couple's lawyers hold true, Google actually DID invade their privacy
        since it went into a *private road* where a sign clearly states *
        Private road. No trespassing*. Apparently there is no *street* in sight
        from the house which apparently was not photographed from the street but
        from this private road. In North America and more specifically in the
        US, this is and should be taken very seriously and Google would be
        *pretending* to be naive if they don't, which they obviously are not.

        In US, not that far ago you could be shot if trespassing.

        Eduardo


        * michel thoby wrote, On 01/02/2010 6:10 AM:
        >
        >
        > Don't know if this was already reported on this list.
        >
        > <<29 January: A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit that a
        > Pennsylvania couple filed against Google after a driver for its
        > Street View service took a panoramic photograph of their secluded
        > home.>>
        >
        > More: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10444755-38.html
      • Jan Martin
        The second important thing is, the court already stated that no financial damage could be demonstrated. Worst could happen to Google is a 1 (one!) $US fine .
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          The second important thing is, the court already stated that no financial
          damage could be demonstrated. Worst could happen to Google is a 1 (one!) $US
          fine .

          On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Eduardo Hutter <montreal360@...>wrote:

          >
          >
          > Even in the case they win, it shouldn't be something for us as
          > photographers to worry. If what we can read from the excerpts from the
          > couple's lawyers hold true, Google actually DID invade their privacy
          > since it went into a *private road* where a sign clearly states *
          > Private road. No trespassing*. Apparently there is no *street* in sight
          > from the house which apparently was not photographed from the street but
          > from this private road. In North America and more specifically in the
          > US, this is and should be taken very seriously and Google would be
          > *pretending* to be naive if they don't, which they obviously are not.
          >
          > In US, not that far ago you could be shot if trespassing.
          >
          > Eduardo
          >
          > * michel thoby wrote, On 01/02/2010 6:10 AM:
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > Don't know if this was already reported on this list.
          > >
          > > <<29 January: A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit that a
          > > Pennsylvania couple filed against Google after a driver for its
          > > Street View service took a panoramic photograph of their secluded
          > > home.>>
          > >
          > > More: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10444755-38.html
          >
          >



          --
          http://www.DIY-streetview.org


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • mrjimbo
          Constructively.. Assuming that what is in the thread is correct in that Google did invade a space that was classified as private then they might still be at
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Constructively..
            Assuming that what is in the thread is correct in that Google did invade a
            space that was classified as private then they might still be at risk.. The
            higher court is passing judgment on the rights of Google or the couple
            involved ..If the judgment goes against Google the couple is well within
            their rights to start to civil suit for whatever they feel is appropriate
            compensation. The higher courts have merely stated they don't want to get
            involved in the money side of it which is potentially a civil matter and
            better served in another court. So the process is just fine and in the end
            if the couple's rights were indeed violated which is really yet to be
            determined they will probably be better positioned to be successful in a
            lawsuit in a civil court. We should not forget the constitution grants us
            the rights to privacy ....in this case the higher courts must determine if
            that right was indeed violated..
            Anyway it ain't over till it's over!!! Frankly, if the couple's attorneys
            have driven this in the direction it appears to be going then their doing
            quite well. This keeps all the fancy pants big money attorneys games out of
            it as it simply becomes a matter of interpreting law and the constitution,
            which is a job for the courts not the attorneys.. Had this been handled as a
            civil matter they probably had no place to go as Google could out money them
            forever..

            jimbo


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Jan Martin" <janmartin@...>
            To: <PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 8:16 AM
            Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Appeals court lets Google Street View suit
            continue


            > The second important thing is, the court already stated that no financial
            > damage could be demonstrated. Worst could happen to Google is a 1 (one!)
            > $US
            > fine .
            >
            > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Eduardo Hutter
            > <montreal360@...>wrote:
            >
            >>
            >>
            >> Even in the case they win, it shouldn't be something for us as
            >> photographers to worry. If what we can read from the excerpts from the
            >> couple's lawyers hold true, Google actually DID invade their privacy
            >> since it went into a *private road* where a sign clearly states *
            >> Private road. No trespassing*. Apparently there is no *street* in sight
            >> from the house which apparently was not photographed from the street but
            >> from this private road. In North America and more specifically in the
            >> US, this is and should be taken very seriously and Google would be
            >> *pretending* to be naive if they don't, which they obviously are not.
            >>
            >> In US, not that far ago you could be shot if trespassing.
            >>
            >> Eduardo
            >>
            >> * michel thoby wrote, On 01/02/2010 6:10 AM:
            >>
            >> >
            >> >
            >> > Don't know if this was already reported on this list.
            >> >
            >> > <<29 January: A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit that a
            >> > Pennsylvania couple filed against Google after a driver for its
            >> > Street View service took a panoramic photograph of their secluded
            >> > home.>>
            >> >
            >> > More: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10444755-38.html
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            > --
            > http://www.DIY-streetview.org
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > --
            >
            >
            >

            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10
            12:37:00

            ----------


            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • RaphaĆ«l Jacquot
            ... it appear from the map that the place is visible from a public road...
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 09:01 -0700, mrjimbo wrote:

              > Anyway it ain't over till it's over!!! Frankly, if the couple's attorneys
              > have driven this in the direction it appears to be going then their doing
              > quite well. This keeps all the fancy pants big money attorneys games out of
              > it as it simply becomes a matter of interpreting law and the constitution,
              > which is a job for the courts not the attorneys.. Had this been handled as a
              > civil matter they probably had no place to go as Google could out money them
              > forever..

              it appear from the map that the place is visible from a public road...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.