Editorial: Watching Your Every Move

Privacy laws in Europe (especially some continental countries) tend to be very strict. Despite that, this is a real concern and threat. Especially when viewed in context of other related initiatives like sharing DNA data between European countries (report out today; believe it has been seeded).

AS the artcile suggests, data protection laws on the other side of the pond need to catch up with where the technology is going so that individual privacy remains protected.

There's a lot happening concurrently, and much of it is behind the scenes.

Which goes to prove that technology can be one of the strongest aids to make life better and easier for all when used for Society's good. And that it can equally become a potentially dangerous weapon that can just as easily be abused against the interests of the same Society.

It does have the propensity for both great good and great evil.

I am not opposed to outside surveillance of the street, as a crime deterrent. My concern is only peeping into windows of private homes.

I am not sure, though, given the current technology, how they can separate the two, to keep the "seeing into windows" surveillance opportunities away from the wrong people.

Perhaps heavy and ongoing criminal background checks for those who have access to the surveillance.

They can track movement between rooms and when an occupant leaves and returns.

really? arent these simply still photographs? how often do these cars roll down the street?

google has said that these photographs are no different from what you'd get in the background of any picture taken of your kids on the sidewalk. we're not talking about 24/7 video feeds here.

Thats exactly correct. And thats why this is not a big deal compared to other things like electronic communication monitoring. All they did was drive down the street taking pictures, if they saw into your window, then learn to keep your shades closed.

In the US taking a still picture of the inside of home is a violation of privacy.

Such an action, can result in harassment or peeping charges if the homeowner wishes to pursue it, and can identify the person taking the photograph.

These stills are going to go global.

I'd be interested in seeing the law that says this. For me to be on public property, and take a picture in the direction of your house, and happen to see you inside through the open window... seems to be your fault. It seems similar to the plain view law, if a cop walks past your window, and sees something illegal in plain view, your getting in trouble.

I am definitely against the invasion of privacy, but this is a small invasion. Luckily, I think there are plenty of other reasons that Google is getting scrutinized over this, and the concept as a whole is being looked into more ethically and appropriately.

People also need to be ready for attempts at privacy invasion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this technology is available. So maybe keep that in the back of your mind. Infact, to actually protect yourself, you need to think one step ahead. Frankly, the people abused by this technology should have seen it coming.

i learned a long time ago to pull the shades if i'm firing up a joint. we cant be afraid of technology, we need to be afraid of the people seeking power, and the technologies THEY'RE using are rarely available via google, which is a red herring.

While I understand your assertion that this MAY be a small invasion, it paves the way for larger more serious invasions of privacy.

Nevertheless, if you do the research you will find that the issue of photographing into someone's windows can be actionable.

A police officer is a law enforcement official and that is a different circumstance. The "in plain view" defense does not apply to ordinary citizens regarding PRIVATE PROPERTY. Ordinary citizens may photograph areas normally visible to the public but photographing into windows is my only complaint.

The other issue is profits. Google is making a profit from these photographs. In addition they have not asked for permission to reproduce them and use them, or offered to share their profits, and have not prior warned residents they may be filming.

I will be surprised if no one challenges this issue in court.

In our area a for-profit home Magazine took a photograph of the exterior of a house they thought was indicative of the typical home style in the area. They put it on their magazine cover without asking permission or getting a photo release. The homeowners saw it and successfully sued. They won because the magazine was using their home as a model and the magazine is a profit making venture.

The fact that the blinds are open is not a valid defense against peeping. Peeping is peeping. Are people supposed to keep their blinds closed 24/7?

As for seeing something coming. Isn't breaking a law breaking a law?

If a car runs a red light and kills you. Should the driver's defense be that you should have seen it coming?

While I understand your assertion that this MAY be a small invasion, it paves the way for larger more serious invasions of privacy.

as do all forms of new technology.

Nevertheless, if you do the research you will find that the issue of photographing into someone's windows can be actionable.

of course it can. but i think you've already been asked to provide evidence that this particular kind of photography is against the law, because it doesnt seem to be.

The "in plain view" defense does not apply to ordinary citizens regarding PRIVATE PROPERTY. Ordinary citizens may photograph areas normally visible to the public but photographing into windows is my only complaint.

this is where it gets muddled. are you complaining specifically towards an existing law regarding private property? it doesnt seem that you are. these are windows seen from public space, and the photography is no different from what you'd see in the background of a photograph taken on the sidewalk.

The other issue is profits. Google is making a profit from these photographs. In addition they have not asked for permission to reproduce them and use them, or offered to share their profits, and have not prior warned residents they may be filming.

again, public space, etc.

I will be surprised if no one challenges this issue in court.

on what basis?

In our area a for-profit home Magazine took a photograph of the exterior of a house they thought was indicative of the typical home style in the area. They put it on their magazine cover without asking permission or getting a photo release. The homeowners saw it and successfully sued. They won because the magazine was using their home as a model and the magazine is a profit making venture.

that is clearly a different scenario, because google isnt using these photographs to sell anything resembling the pictures. they are simply using the pictures as a feature of a different kind of product. based on prior evidence, it's likely that google would remove any picture upon request.

The fact that the blinds are open is not a valid defense against peeping. Peeping is peeping. Are people supposed to keep their blinds closed 24/7?

if google parks a car outside a house and takes pictures, that is much different than a car moving by and taking pictures at set intervals of whatever it passes.

If a car runs a red light and kills you. Should the driver's defense be that you should have seen it coming?

running a red light is against the law. taking pictures in public spaces is not.

i see where you're coming from, i really do, but you're not making accurate parallels, and, in general, your case isnt very strong.

Thanks Firsty, I don't have interent at home right now (stupid time warner...), so I'm glad to see you beat me to the comeback. I would have said basically the same thing.

Regarding 'seeing it coming'... a car running a red light is a horrible counter. I'm talking about the developments of technology and the ability of any joe-shmo to utilize it. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And no, you don't need to keep your blinds closed 24/7, but consider this... If you are offended by a picture of yourself doing something in your own home... why didn't you close the blinds? Seems a little too obvious to me.

i know there are webcams in various cities, but google street view is not video, and webcams arent doing what google street view is doing.

the possibilities are, literally, endless. if you're trying to make a point that technology can be used for bad, no one's going to argue with you.

I suggest you test the law by trying it on your neighbor. ;) Let us know what happens.

ok. i'll take a picture of my kids standing on the sidewalk, with, in the background, my neighbor's window.

Here is what the lead states: Internet users are abuzz over Google's new Street View feature, which displays ground-level photos of urban blocks that in some cases even look through the windows of homes.

If that paragraph is incorrect or misleading, please let me know. I have not seen the google photographs, yet.

there a probably millions of photographs, some of them with windows in the backgrounds. if you need a clearer story, read 1. the entire article and 2. the internet buzz.

If so, I will yes be very surprised if it is never challenged by a citizen who has nothing better to do with their money than hire a law firm to challenge it, or perhaps an attorney who is representing himself.

thats hardly a standard of whether or not something is legally valid.

...there a probably millions of photographs, some of them with windows in the backgrounds. if you need a clearer story, read 1. the entire article and 2. the internet buzz.

It is somewhat rude to assume I have not read the entire article.

I have read it and it is not clear how FAR INTO THE WINDOWS ONE CAN SEE.

Again, my statement applies only to LOOKING THROUGH THE WINDOWS, as stated in the article.

If that statement is misleading and the google photographs do not capture INTERIOR VIEWS, than as I stated it is not a crime, but it could be a CIVIL SUIT if advertising profits are being made by Google in anyway at all.

There are no photographs accompanying the article or the buzz. But, again, if they are using the photograph of EVEN JUST THE EXTERIOR OF A HOME TO MAKE ANY TYPE OF PROFIT, ADVERTISING INCLUDED, a civil suit may be winnable.

Do you have an example of a photograph? I would love to see one so that all could make a better judgement regarding the issue.

Do you know for certain that google is not profiting from this venture in ANY WAY?

Civil suits, unlike laws are OPEN TO INTERPRETATION BY THE COURTS, but it is plausible that the homeowner may sue and win, IF GOOGLE IS MAKING A PROFIT FROM ASSOCIATED ADVERTISING WITH "STREET VIEWS".

Here is an excerpt from a legal tort regarding invasion of privacy: I have included the link: Please note it clearly states at the end that spying into windows IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY.

Intentional intrusion: physical or otherwise

4.46 The intrusion, which must be intentional, may consist of any or a combination of the following methods:

o Physical intrusion. The uninvited and unauthorised entry into the plaintiff's home, room or living quarters may constitute an invasion of privacy. Illustrative examples include the unauthorised entry into these places by a stranger,64 landlord,65 employer66 or creditor.67
o Use of senses. Intrusion may consist of the use of the defendant's senses to observe or overhear the plaintiff's private affairs.68
o Use of surveillance devices. Intrusion extends to eavesdropping upon private conversations by means of surveillance devices, such as wiretaps, microphones69 and tracking devices.
o Others. The intrusion may also consist of other forms of investigations into the plaintiff's private affairs, such as the opening, reading, copying of sealed mail70 or private documents, such as a political association's membership lists.71 It may also consist of the unauthorised prying into a private bank account,72 or repeated telephone calls at unreasonable hours.73

4.47 This tort covers a broader range of acts than trespass to land, which requires that the defendant has unlawfully entered and/or remained on, or caused physical matter to come into contact with, another person's land. Thus, while eavesdropping upon private conversations by wiretaps or spying into windows of a private home would not constitute trespass to land, they can be actionable as invasions of privacy.74

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/pages/LRC_cp01chp4#H3

Do you have an example of a photograph? I would love to see one so that all could make a better judgement regarding the issue.

Do you know for certain that google is not profiting from this venture in ANY WAY?

there are many examples of street level photographs available all over the internet. hey, if this is so easy and so broadly applied, check it out - it's a live feature.

of course google is profiting. they are an ad-based company. but they arent selling the insides of peoples homes.

spying is not defined, legally, as a snapshot - it's an extended, continued effort to obtain information. you are discussing, appropriately so, the slippery slope, but the actions that google is engaged in do not appear to be illegal. but i'm not a lawyer.

I can only find photographs with windows that appear to have the blinds down, but I only viewed a handful and I don't have time to investigate further to see if photographs that show interior views exist.

Google may be able to solve the looking through windows issue, by intentionally photoshopping in blinds on windows that did not have the blinds pulled down.

Regarding profits....a civil challenge is a possibility. Whether or not the plaintiff will win is always a gamble in a civil suit.

But, I do see your point, Firsty, and your observations are valid. I am only raising possibilities for consideration.