Comment by cschwarm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cschwarm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Well, there are some different questions:

First, do they have a right to use a camera mounted in a height above the normal eye level? Why should people be required to adjust the height of their fences to protect themselves from Google's view? Just because there are no laws against this yet, doens't mean Google has a right.

Second, even if they have the right to make the photos, do they also have the right to automatically make them public? There's no human judgement involved, so who's responsible when Google camera catches you naked while sun-bathing in your own garden? Who can be sued for taking these images down and who's paying for the damage that is created while the photos were online?

Third, do the have the right to connect the photos with street addresss so the views are searchable? This decreases search costs and your home will be public not just to bypassers, but to anyone. Who said, they are allowded to do that?

And this is the point: They asked noone but just though they could act as if they are free do however they please. This may work in the U.S. but this doens't work here. Or, at least, that's not how it should work.

1. Three meters is not an unreasonable height, that’s about your eye height in a bus. People already don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy from cameras that height.

2. They have the right to make them public. It’s right there in the law. And if something goes wrong you can sue Google - they are responsible, they have a German address and all.

3. It’s not illegal. You don’t have to ask anybody.

Google can take photos in public and I don’t want anyone to take that right away from Google because at the same time my right to do the same is also taken away. Can’t you see that? You also seem to have a poor understanding of the current legislation in Germany.

I'm sorry, I find it grossly naive that you believe a photograph taken from beyond the legislated privacy fence height in most jurisdictions to be not unreasonable. Of course people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy from 3 meters tall, they have a reasonable expectation that people will respect the spirit of the law and not be a raging moron and place a camera at that height.

I do know that in many jurisdictions, probably including Germany, that it is completely 100% illegal to profit from your photography of another person without their written consent. Given that Google photographed several of my friends, didn't get them to sign a released and is making a profit off of its unconsented photography it is violating the law.

So, just for clarification. Google is violating the law in many jurisdictions. I'm unsure about Germany, but I know they are in the UK and Canada even though no charges have been brought. Perhaps because Google isn't specifically trying to make a profit off of the personal images they have taken, but under the letter of the law they are completely violating it at the moment. This is perhaps why they are working on software to remove people from their photographs, because they already know they're breaking the law.

It’s perfectly legal to profit from photos which happen to have people in them without any consent, written or otherwise. And I damn well hope that it stays that way.

Nestle lost a $15m suit because it forgot a consent form for a model. A girl from Africa settled a case for an undisclosed amount from a photo taken in Africa, in the LA courts because her image was used for advertising without her consent, this happened over a decade later IIRC when she'd moved to the US and was in the process of becoming a model.

You, in general, don't have to have consent to take a photograph of a persons property, because property cannot be defamed in any way. However, making money off of a photograph of someone else without their consent opens you up to a whole host of civil suits that by tort law has almost always been a loser for the photographer.

Not to mention the automated nature of Street View has let a way too many images of semi-naked/naked photos of people onto the internet without their consent, including one of a child, which should never have gotten online to begin with, but legally speaking should never have been photographed to begin with, but we're talking civil violation of the law here and not criminal so I won't go onto this.

Nope: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild

Sigh. Doesn’t apply.

Your assumption that three meters is "reasonable" is just a personal opinion: Buses don't drive everywhere, and if your house happens to be on a bus route, you know that and you can react appropriately.

Also, their passengers are unlikely to make photos from some unspectacular houses somewhere, put them online, and link them with the relevant addresses.

Google may have a German address but who's got the copyright of these photos? Do you know if it's the German company or is it the American one? In general, why should anyone be forced to sue? You would need to have a case, and it's not always possible to prove damage. For example, proof that your reputation was damaged when street view caught you making love with your wife in your own garden, surrounded by a two meter fence.

Concerning the law: You and your face is also public when you happen to be in a public place. But there's also a law concerning your right to your own photo, ie. I can't simply take a photo of you walking down a public street and put it online without asking for permission.

But when you're arguing that it's a moral sufficient justification that someone somewhere can make money off of it, shouldn't we drop that law?

Then, everybody can add add motion detection to the cameras and put these cars in front of some 'interesting' houses! Say, the houses of Google employees, taking photos of them, their wifes and their children. Maybe, there's a business model for that, too.

And why stop there? What about people in law enforcement, the military, public administration and politicians? After all, it's all public and as long as someone pays for it, you obviously think it's OK that it be done.

I guess, you wouldn't want that. But if people have a right for their own photos, why not also their own houses?

Your last argument can also be turned around: Laws against street view would not only protect everybody else, but you, your wife, your children, too. In general, just because you can do X, doesn't mean you have the right to do X.

Oh noes, it’s a slippery slope! I don’t want to live in a society where what Google does is illegal. That’s just ridiculous.

I don't want to live in a society where everything needs explicit approval (whitelisting). Some things should explicitly be disallowed (blacklisting).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com