Skip to comments.Google admits trespassing in Pa., pays couple $1
Posted on 12/07/2010 12:53:00 PM PST by a fool in paradise
Google Inc. has acknowledged trespassing by taking a photo of a Pennsylvania couple's home for its Street View service, but the company will pay only $1 in damages.
...Aaron and Christine Boring, of Franklin Park, sued two years ago. They say Google's images of their home were taken from their long driveway, which is a private road.
The couple's attorney says Google has "conceded liability as an intentional trespasser," which was the point of the lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
"Be seeing you."
They've put the human race under constant surveillance, become billionaires doing it, and receive and it didn't even cost them 30 piecese of silver.
Correction: and it didn't even cost them 30 piecese of silver.
30 pieces of silver.
Correction: and it didn't even cost them 30 pieces of silver.
Isn’t it irritating when your fingers won’t listen to your brain?
Bad fingers. Bad, bad.
Now, we have to come up with a meaning for our new word.
n. (plural) Small fillets of fish. A conflation of pieces and Pisces.
Apparently, this Boring couple was upset that Google was taking pictures from their Boring driveway.
They don’t discuss it in this story but I’ve heard about this one. The couple didn’t want money from Google, they wanted an admission of guilt. Reports floating around this have had Google offering in the millions but without admitting any wrong doing, the couple is financially secure, they didn’t want the money just the admission.
Google map has become a joke. When I try to locate a business, it always shows the building as though it sits about 500 ft. off the road w/o anything next to it. I much preferred being able to see the buildings next to the one I am looking for so that I can safely slow down and signal to turn.
I notice that they DO include other buildings here and there, I suppose those are the ones who pay to have them put on Google maps.
I never thought about it; but, Google trespassed to get their photo of my house. Didn’t know I could make a buck off of it.
I got the four-piecese special at Long John Silver's today.
Thx for the perspective.
I suppose the legal precedent might be helpful. Well, it would in a just world, at least.
I've argued for years that people who profit from trading your personal info owe you a royalty.
But there isn't a lawyer on the planet who'd bother with anything that wasn't a slam dunk. And a growing segment of the word's economy is invested in the exact opposite principle.
Help the Ministry of Information Help You!
What I found interesting is how much Google was apparently willing to pay to NOT admit they did wrong. Maybe I’m just not cut out for the world of business but if I’m given a pay money or admit to wrong choice I don’t care if I was right or wrong I’ll say I was wrong and keep the money.
“admit wrong” is like leaving your credit card on the counter at Grand Central Station.
Not if it ends proceedings. Yeah you don’t want to admit you’re wrong while there’s still a pending suit, but if it puts an end to the suit it’s a no brainer. But Google has that “do no evil” thing.
The couple didn’t go for the billions because they didn’t want it to be about the money. They’re financially secure thought is was more important to show that Google did something bad than getting the big score. I can kind of see it, these days so many suits are just blatant money grabs without any wrongdoing on the part of the sued that even with wrong doing most people think it’s all about the money. This keeps the couple’s image untarnished, and now Google has admitted they aren’t as squeaky clean as the like to present.
Well, the trespass was because the truck drove down a road that turned out to be a private driveway. It isn’t, and shouldn’t be, illegal to take photographs from a public way, IMHO.
Hey, it's not your fault. It was probably some sort of invisible hand hitting the wrong keys.
piecese - noun, FReeperism - specie of infinitesimal worth, as in: not worth the paper its written on; not worth a plugged nickel; not worth the rust on a red-painted barn.
Hey, I'm series hear!
50 cents after the lawyer takes his cut of the settlement.
you ought to get some kind of prize for these.
I would tend to agree. However, when it's done specifically for the sale of the image of your specific property, and for global distribution for anyone to view anywhere, it's a whole new game. Privacy is arguably infringed, liability possibly incurred by the distributor of the images, and, as I stated before, the economic opportunity created by one's unique image, capitalized upon, argues for a share in the return for the titleholder of the object of that image.
Here's the nub in our over-exposed society, IMHO.
Don't know if I can explain this fully, but since the advent of the web, all types of info is now readily available to folks that either wouldn't (shouldn't?) normally see it, or specifically target and use said info for their own profit or purpose contrary to the wishes of the owner. This Google trespass is one, another is the wholesale uploads of "Public Records" to the web for nefarious purpose.
Back in the 70's, Gannett printed five full pages of full names and addresses of every Concealed Carry Holder in Monroe County, NY while they (Gannett) was beating the drums to have all weapons removed from all 'civilians'. Now, anyone could have personally gone to County Records and perused the records, no problem; but for the local newsrag to do it, and collate the records culled from all the towns and villages - in my mind - was a violation of the privacy those CCW folks expected. You can bet that the list made some criminals happy; first to know which places to avoid, or which ones to 'score'. Of course, Gannett hid behind the First Amendment, claiming it was in the public's 'right to know'.
I don't know what the full answer is, but I commend these folks in staying the course, and getting a solid conviction against Google.
Now then, we are not likely to see this right given much heed, as the amount of money and power riding on the surveillance society is, at current valuations, probably nearly incalculable.
And money drives it -- and when money stops driving it, naked power does (as money is a proxy for power).
Enough for now.