Forums | MacLife

They should have just replaced the photo from that section of the road with this

The family was certainly justified in complaining, since it was a private road.  But the road still should've been marked; it was an honest mistake on Google's part.

I'm all for privacy, but I don't see how street view, that anyone else have anyway, is so invasive..

I'm all for privacy, but I don't see how street view, that anyone else have anyway, is so invasive..

A couple things to consider:

1. There's a big difference between a) my neighbors being able to see my house when they go outside to walk their dog or whatever, and b) the entire world being able to see my house at any time for any reason, from the convenience of their own homes.

2. What if the Google pictures show parts of the inside of your house through a window(s)? Wouldn't you consider pictures of the inside of your house a privacy issue? Where is the line drawn between the two?

3. It would give thieves an easier way to scope out potential houses to rob, without even having to walk through the neighborhood. They'd have a world of houses to look at, right at their fingertips.

4. It may be against the law where you live.

5. Do you really feel comfortable with the idea of a complete stranger walking around taking pictures of your house and property?


Anyway, mrreet2001, there's really no need to rant about anything here, we've all got our own opinions

Last edited by thumbprint (2008-07-31 10:38 am)

It's not an invasion of privacy to take pictures of a house from a public area.

It is an invasion of privacy to take your photo for comercial usage and use it without your permission.

It's not against the law to take photos of anything or anyplace, unless there are security reasons or laws prohibiiting it. Pretty much financial, governmental installations and military installations are the ones that are protected by law.

mrreet2001 wrote:

sturner wrote:

It's not an invasion of privacy to take pictures of a house from a public area.

It is an invasion of privacy to take your photo for comercial usage and use it without your permission.

It's not against the law to take photos of anything or anyplace, unless there are security reasons or laws prohibiiting it. Pretty much financial, governmental installations and military installations are the ones that are protected by law.

QFT

Agreed

sturner wrote:

[snip]
It is an invasion of privacy to take your photo for comercial usage and use it without your permission.
[snip]

I'm not sure that "invasion of privacy" is the correct term here. Perhaps violation of implied copyright that you as the owner automatically have, but even then I think that that copyright is limited. If your house was in the background of a movie/commercial I was making such that it wasn't directly involved in the scene (e.g., a couple talking while walking down a suburban street, as opposed to my actors walking up to your door and pretending to knock on the door), then I think that you wouldn't have much of a case to complain.

CG5Addict wrote:

Also; what if I want to swim with a lady friend nude?

That's what privacy fences are for.

CG5Addict wrote:

I should not be looking in the sky to see if somebody is looking at me like some nut job.

If you see a car in the sky, you are the least of the driver's concerns.

thumbprint wrote:

It's not against the law to take photos of anything or anyplace, unless there are security reasons or laws prohibiiting it. Pretty much financial, governmental installations and military installations are the ones that are protected by law.

With due respect, and no offense intended, unless you're a judge or an attorney, you don't know that for certain. In fairness, neither do I. I am going to find out what the law states on this issue in my state when I get a chance.

Anyway, if you folks disagree with me, that's fine. To each his/her own

I can't argue with your wish for privacy, but legally I don't think you have much of a position. What you're talking about is the reasonable expectation of privacy. Look it up. Basically, if it can be seen from public property it's not private. I became aware of this when a security guard at a building downtown tried to confiscate my camera when I was taking pictures of the building. It was just neat architecture. I was jsut taking pictures. I didn't know what the big deal was. The guy hassled me and threatened to call the cops. I was pretty sure he had no right to do that but I really didn't give a smurf about his stupid building so I just erased the pictures and he was fine with that.

Of course I went straight home and looked it up and found plenty of information about photographer's rights all saying that with the exception of some government installations (and low angle shots up women's skirts...damn!) if it can be seen from public property it cannot be considered an invasion of privacy.

...oh and now that I know, I'm dying for a fight but nobody's smurfed with me since.

jkahless wrote:

thumbprint wrote:

A. I have nothing to hide  and
B. I live on  a PUBLIC road ... anyone can be there.

I don't have anything to hide, either. But having something to hide and wanting people to respect my privacy aren't the same thing. It's my house, my property, my car in the driveway, etc. If someone wants to post pictures of it all online for the world to see, they should need my permission to do so.

If you want to have privacy in a place that is within public view, build a damn fence.

I could've sworn I said something to that effect earlier.

If you want to have privacy in a place that is within public view, build a damn fence.

The difference again is between my neighbors and local passersby (people I know)... and the entire world. Not that I'm rich or important or anything like that, I just don't want pictures of my property online. I did read some articles however and apparently Google will remove any such pictures if you request it.

Pottymouth, thanks for the terminology "reasonable expectation of privacy" I did look it up and the law seems a bit muddy. I read that in my state you can't sue *for damages* if someone takes pictures of your house/property, but it wasn't so clear on if you can sue to *cease and desist*.

Anyway, if Google holds true to removing pictures upon request, then that's good enough for me personally. I still think they ought to have to request permission first.


PS: I don't have the money to build a damn fence

Last edited by thumbprint (2008-07-31 6:51 pm)