Google Street View

[2046]

As most of you know, Google Street View is a function on Google maps and Google Earth which offers the user street level photographs of cities and towns across the world in 360 degrees. This includes large cities, metropolitan areas, famous landmarks, small towns, secluded subdivisions, and residential neighborhoods.

Google contracts a mapping company for much of the shooting and the photography is done from a van with a large pole outfitted in camera equipment photographing in all directions constantly. The van drives down the street and photographs every block as it goes.

In many places, residents have a small fence or houses and complexes have a small wall for privacy, but with the camera being suspended from a large pole atop the van, the shots can peer right over them.

As you can imagine, Google has photographed a lot of strange things. In one place there is frame by frame imagery of the van running over a deer. There have been crimes and other strange incidents caught on camera.

A high school girl being groped in Japan.

The mapping van is speeding.

Some ladies sunbathing in California.

Peering over the fences of residential homes.

There are several cases pending violations of privacy laws and in some countries GSV has been banned. Obviously, any attempt to access private roads should be stopped, but the photography is taken from public roads and streets where any pedestrian can technically snap a photo. When Google photographs a person, they say they will blurr the face, but it doesn't take much to recognize someone if you know them. Google also says it will remove any photo of a person upon request and says it will "try to be responsible."

What is the Objectivist viewpoint on this practice?

[Jake_Ellison]

The abuse Google has been subjected to for this (perfectly legitimate activity), in many supposedly free countries, is a clear sign of our decaying civilization.

[JMeganSnow]

Technically it's not a moral activity because it's founded on an immoral situation--public "ownership" of the roads. If the roads were private, this would not be an issue, and the owner could decide whether to allow the Google van or disallow it. They'd be aware of the date of the drive-through in that case and able to hopefully keep the worst of the goofiness off the street.

[2046]

The abuse Google has been subjected to for this (perfectly legitimate activity), in many supposedly free countries, is a clear sign of our decaying civilization.

If you don't mind, what makes it and why is it a legitimate activity compared to an immoral one?

Does the Capitalist need to abolish all "public property" not complicate the issue?

Is it an initiation of force to photograph a person against their will?

Is it an initiation of force to photograph a person's property against the owner's will?

Is it an initiation of force to photograph a person on their private property against their will?

Do addresses and license plates qualify as private property?

Please explain. (And thanks for any feedback)

[Brule]

I'm not the original poster but I'll give it a shot.

If you don't mind, what makes it and why is it a legitimate activity compared to an immoral one?

The act does not violate anyone's rights.

Does the Capitalist need to abolish all "public property" not complicate the issue?

Yes, for the most part. Property could be owned by the government for police or military use, but it would be for that exclusive use and not public.

Is it an initiation of force to photograph a person against their will?

If they are on private land that rule would be up to the land owner, or someone acting with those rights such as a renter.

Is it an initiation of force to photograph a person's property against the owner's will?

Not if there is no effort to hide that property. If you're at someone's house and they ask you not to take photos, then it would be a violation to do so.

Is it an initiation of force to photograph a person on their private property against their will?

Again, the likely answer is no.

Do addresses and license plates qualify as private property?

The physical license plate would be property that shouldn't be stolen. The information of an address or license plate is not.

Please explain. (And thanks for any feedback)

There are a few areas where things get fuzzy. Since there is "public" property (such as roads) there have to be rules for that land. Since people generally have the right to go onto that land and take their cameras there, anything in plain view would be fair game. However, there is the case of using exceptional means to look beyond what is usually in the open. There are x-ray cameras at swimming pools and infrared wielding police helicopters which go way beyond the scope of what is in plain sight. In this case google uses none of these (that I know of) so I don't think they apply here.

[Zodok]

A high school girl being groped in Japan.

Why am I not surprised?

[Tordmor]

However, there is the case of using exceptional means to look beyond what is usually in the open. There are x-ray cameras at swimming pools and infrared wielding police helicopters which go way beyond the scope of what is in plain sight. In this case google uses none of these (that I know of) so I don't think they apply here.

As can be seen in the last posted picture the camera is high enough that it does see beyond measures of protection that would be safe from normal passers-by. So the google van does circumvent measures of protection of private properties. I think that could be an issue.

[Brule]

As can be seen in the last posted picture the camera is high enough that it does see beyond measures of protection that would be safe from normal passers-by. So the google van does circumvent measures of protection of private properties. I think that could be an issue.

I've been in trucks there easily looked over fences similar to that picture. I'm also a tall person and while it has its advantages, short stalls in restrooms is not one of them.

I just don't see anything too egregious on Google's part but I see your point.

[JeffS]

Google caught me mowing my lawn. Now, I'm a celebrity.

I've no right to be free of anyone taking my picture when I'm out in public. My neighbors can see into my fenced-in backyard from their upper stories. If they choose to take pictures of me, I have no right to prevent them from doing so.

Google has done nothing immoral.

[Jill]

Isn't it different to take a permanent record of your home without your consent than to just pass by because you have to get around?

[KendallJ]

Isn't it different to take a permanent record of your home without your consent than to just pass by because you have to get around?

Why is this different?

[DavidOdden]

What property right did Google violate? That is what the question reduces to.

[2046]

For all the pro- (Google Street View) people, some questions:

What is it that seperates the Google activity from that of a Peeping Tom or other lawless activity based on criminal surveillance?

Or should all Peeping Tom / Prowling / Stalking / Loitering / Disturbing the Peace / Criminal Voyuerism / Criminal Surveillance laws be abolished?

Surveillance is generally defined as the secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying on them and invading their privacy. It also applies to a person who peeps through windows or doors.

Here are some examples of such laws:

(a) Any person who shall peep secretly into any room occupied by another person shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

© Unless covered by another provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who, while in possession of any device which may be used to create a photographic image, shall secretly peep into any room shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.

(g) Any person who knowingly possesses a photographic image that the person knows, or has reason to believe, was obtained in violation of this section shall be guilty of a Class I felony.

(h) Any person who disseminates or allows to be disseminated images that the person knows, or should have known, were obtained as a result of the violation of this section shall be guilty of a Class H felony if the dissemination is without the consent of the person in the photographic image.

The term "photographic image" means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape, motion picture, or live television transmission, or any digital image of any individual.

Invasion of Privacy laws:

Invasion of privacy is the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. It encompasses workplace monitoring, Internet privacy, data collection, and other means of disseminating private information.

Celebrities are not protected in most situations, since they have voluntarily placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities are considered newsworthy. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a.) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b.) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c.) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d.) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.

The criminal voyeurism statute of some states cover "a place where [one] would have a reasonable expectation of privacy", meaning:

A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or

A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

A person is guilty of the dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first-degree, a Class E Felony punishable up to 1 - to 4 years in State prison, if he or she:

(i) publishes or sells an image that was unlawfully obtained; or

(ii) disseminates an image he or she unlawfully obtained

[K-Mac]

To compare Google to a peeping tom is ridiculous. If Google were on your property, stalking you and/or looking in your windows, this would be a totally different situation.

Google is out on the street looking at your house like a bunch of other passers by do daily. If you don't want your house seen by the general public, live in the woods, live in the mountains, erect a wall or something. Your house is on a named street with an assigned number for a reason. So people can find it. If you don't want to be found, don't live in an area where you will be found.

I'm with David on this...what rights of yours has Google violated?

[DavidOdden]

What is it that seperates the Google activity from that of a Peeping Tom or other lawless activity based on criminal surveillance?

As a starting point, do you understand the proper basis of privacy? (This was the subject of Amy Peikoff's dissertation: read it if you can).

[2046]

As a starting point, do you understand the proper basis of privacy? (This was the subject of Amy Peikoff's dissertation: read it if you can).

Do you have a link to where I can find this? I'd love to hear anyone from ARI on this.

[TuringAI]

What property right did Google violate? That is what the question reduces to.

The right to withhold information may not be physically touchable like a car or a cell phone but it is indeed a property right. It is a prerequisite for living amongst other people, since otherwise any personal affair at any time would be subject to becoming a public affair. The concept of privacy is what differentiates civilized men and barbarians.

[DavidOdden]

Do you have a link to where I can find this?

It's not publically out, but you might check for a Proquest (former UMI) link if you have a university connection.

[DavidOdden]

The right to withhold information may not be physically touchable like a car or a cell phone but it is indeed a property right.

I know you have strange view of privacy as a property right. And yet it has no hallmarks of a real property right. The right to "withhold information" is a restatement of your right to live your life free from force -- you cannot be rightfully compelled to provide information (except well-defined cases under the law). That is completely irrelevant here because these people are not withholding, so no rights of theirs have been violated. If they wanted to withhold, they would erect a fence or stay behind the trees. Nobody is forcing them to expose themselves. "Privacy" is a derivative concept, and cannot in the context of a proper theory of rights be extended to people seeing you when you expose yourself. The right to propret is what specifically allows a man recourse to absolute privacy, if he chooses to exercise that right by exploiting his property.

[KendallJ]

For all the pro- (Google Street View) people, some questions:

What is it that seperates the Google activity from that of a Peeping Tom or other lawless activity based on criminal surveillance?

Or should all Peeping Tom / Prowling / Stalking / Loitering / Disturbing the Peace / Criminal Voyuerism / Criminal Surveillance laws be abolished?

Surveillance is generally defined as the secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying on them and invading their privacy. It also applies to a person who peeps through windows or doors.

I'm not a legal scholar but I'll give you my thoughts.

1. other evidence that such surveillance has a strong causal link to the initiation of force.

2. To the extent that there is nothing regarding #1 with the activity: yes.

3. Surveillance is "secret observation for the purpose of spying." Bit circular that...

Surveillance as such is not a violation of any rights. Just as the owning of a firearm is not. The fact that a few people who survey or own firearms ultimately act to harm does not make the act itself criminal. It is the act of force that is criminal.

Some have claimed that this mechanism is too easy to access. Well, most technological innovation make everything easier including crime. The bizarre fear that somehow increasing the ease of a criminal act will somehow increase the prevalence of the act is flawed thinking, but it is the thinking that is at the heart of the idea of "privacy".

[2046]

If they wanted to withhold, they would erect a fence or stay behind the trees. Nobody is forcing them to expose themselves.

Many people have erected fences and walls, but the camera is suspended on a pole so they can see over fences. Note the last photo.

[Brule]

Many people have erected fences and walls, but the camera is suspended on a pole so they can see over fences. Note the last photo.

Then they should have built a taller fence.

If I trespass and look through your blinds, then I've committed a crime. If you like to prance around naked with curtains open and I happen to drive by, what force have I initiated? It's a normal case of property rights.

[2046]

Then they should have built a taller fence.

If I trespass and look through your blinds, then I've committed a crime. If you like to prance around naked with curtains open and I happen to drive by, what force have I initiated? It's a normal case of property rights.

Do you "just happen" to drive by in a van with a camera suspended on a six foot pole, or just happen to walk by on a pair of stilts? How is using the aid of a large pole any different from using x-ray, or a high-powered microphone to aid your senses?

[KendallJ]

If I trespass and look through your blinds, then I've committed a crime.

The actual crime being trespassing, and not looking through your blinds.

[Brule]

Do you "just happen" to drive by in a van with a camera suspended on a six foot pole, or just happen to walk by on a pair of stilts? How is using the aid of a large pole any different from using x-ray, or a high-powered microphone to aid your senses?

It could be a six foot pole on a van. It could be a plane, helicopter, Goodyear blimp, or glider. It could be line workers working on power lines. It could be a garbage truck, straight truck, or semi. It could be painters on ladders painting the house across the street. It could be the person next door in the 2nd story window or the person fixing that roof.

So what is the claim against Google? Is it because it's not one house but many? If it was a school project for a small village would it be okay, but since it is a big company it is not? Is it because that company is spreading that information and not keeping it private and if it were kept private (to that company) would it be fine? Would the issue be the same if a six foot tall man stood on the top of a van and his wife drove, him keeping the picture(s) for his own use?

Where is the actual violation of rights here? What is the factor that makes this criminal (or immoral) and the other examples above okay?