Google Street View

[2046]

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?

Ask K-Mac and DavidOdden. They both said that if you want privacy erect a wall or fence. What if I erect a ladder on a public walking path to take photos over someone's fence? You're telling me that the cops should not be able to stop this? How is this not criminal voyeurism?

[Jake_Ellison]

Ask K-Mac and DavidOdden. They both said that if you want privacy erect a wall or fence. What if I erect a ladder on a public walking path to take photos over someone's fence? You're telling me that the cops should not be able to stop this? How is this not criminal voyeurism?

The same way you posting on this website is not criminal voyeurism. No one demonstrated it it to be a violation of an objective system of rights which guarantees the right to life, liberty and property to everyone, in the same way.

The reason why it's OK for google to be on public property or on the property of an owner who authorized them to be there, and take photos, is because we are all allowed to do the same thing. And the reason for that is that it doesn't violate anyone's property rights.

[2046]

The same way you posting on this website is not criminal voyeurism. No one demonstrated it it to be a violation of an objective system of rights which guarantees the right to life, liberty and property to everyone, in the same way.

The reason why it's OK for google to be on public property or on the property of an owner who authorized them to be there, and take photos, is because we are all allowed to do the same thing. And the reason for that is that it doesn't violate anyone's property rights.

Even if they use a pole to peer over fences and walls, or use x-ray or infrared, or enhanced microphones to breach walls and other constructs intended to give privacy?

[Jill]

So one can stalk a person, take photos without this person's consent and blog about the person's daily life outdoors? Nothing wrong with that, as long as I photograph the person outside and don't touch the person or trespass said person's property?

[2046]

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?

So is it your contention that the government can legitimately utilize this practice (if funding for doing so was voluntary?) If there is no such thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy, and no one's property rights are techinically being violated, why not?

Edited May 16, 2009 by 2046

[Brule]

Ask K-Mac and DavidOdden. They both said that if you want privacy erect a wall or fence.

A fence will provide a certain amount of privacy. No fence may cover you 0% of the time when in your lawn raking leaves. A fence might cover 50% and a taller fence may provide 90%. They have a practical use for that purpose. Please reread those situations I posted and tell me what the difference is between those actions and that of Google.

What if I erect a ladder on a public walking path to take photos over someone's fence? You're telling me that the cops should not be able to stop this? How is this not criminal voyeurism?

Criminal voyeurism is a type of crime posted earlier, not an ethical judgment between men. (though you could certainly judge someone who does it to be creepy) The fact that something may be illegal does not mean it should be illegal or that it is always immoral.

Back to the problem with public property, but I highly doubt cities allow structures to obstruct public walking paths. To make it more simple, as it makes no difference in the argument, just consider it on private property the person has a right to be on. You ask why the cops should not be able to stop this. The only proper purpose of police is to use retaliatory force. What act of force or coercion are they retaliating against? That's the key point that has to be answered or we're just talking about feelings.

So one can stalk a person, take photos without this person's consent and blog about the person's daily life outdoors? Nothing wrong with that, as long as I photograph the person outside and don't touch the person or trespass said person's property?

That's pretty much what private investigators do every day. The same holds true for police and reporters.

[KendallJ]

So one can stalk a person, take photos without this person's consent and blog about the person's daily life outdoors? Nothing wrong with that, as long as I photograph the person outside and don't touch the person or trespass said person's property?

Please. Put words in someone else's mouth.

stalk: to pursue obsessively to the point of harassment. http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/stalking

No one said you can harass someone. However, 99.999 percent of the people who use this service are not stalking. To the other 0.001 percent, it is the * harassment* that is the rights violation, not the observation. The observation is not the rights violation. It is a conflated notion of "privacy" that makes it such.

Even if they use a pole to peer over fences and walls, or use x-ray or infrared, or enhanced microphones to breach walls and other constructs intended to give privacy?

What property right is being violated here?

I posted a response to you earlier, and you seem to be avoiding it. Is that because you want to cling stubbornly to this idea without actually articulating what right is being violated?

[2046]

A fence will provide a certain amount of privacy. No fence may cover you 0% of the time when in your lawn raking leaves. A fence might cover 50% and a taller fence may provide 90%. They have a practical use for that purpose. Please reread those situations I posted and tell me what the difference is between those actions and that of Google.

A specific intent to circumvent the person's reasonable expectation of privacy in a harrassing way. (In the others)

Criminal voyeurism is a type of crime posted earlier, not an ethical judgment between men. (though you could certainly judge someone who does it to be creepy) The fact that something may be illegal does not mean it should be illegal or that it is always immoral.

So there should be no stalking or peeping tom laws?

What act of force or coercion are they retaliating against?

Violation of someone's reasonable expectation of privacy.

[2046]

What property right is being violated here?

I posted a response to you earlier, and you seem to be avoiding it. Is that because you want to cling stubbornly to this idea without actually articulating what right is being violated?

If they are using means beynd the "unaided senses" is it not an act of aggression to circumvent someone's reasonable expectation of privacy? If someone is using x-ray or enhanced microphones (positioned from their property) to listen to trade secrets that I am discussing them behind closed doors (on my property), is that not a form of unlawful aggression?

Is it not an invasion of privacy when someone goes to extreme measures? (Including looking over someone's fence using a camera on a pole.)

Someone earlier said "build a higher fence." Now what do I have to do? Build lead walls?

I agree with you, man. I am just playing the devil's advocate here. Otherwise I can't be satisfied with an answer because I doubt too many people will bring up the usual objections. I need to have things explained.

Edited May 16, 2009 by 2046

[Jake_Ellison]

Even if they use a pole to peer over fences and walls, or use x-ray or infrared, or enhanced microphones to breach walls and other constructs intended to give privacy?

They use a pole because it helps to take better pictures. They don't use any of the other things on your list.

So there should be no stalking or peeping tom laws?

No one said that. What we are saying is that all laws should be limited to punishing actual rights violations.

So peeping tom laws should only be directed against people who are trespassing, harassing their subjects, or commiting a rights violation (like fraud) in some other way. Not built on the "right to privacy" nonsense.

I agree with you, man. I am just playing the devil's advocate here. Otherwise I can't be satisfied with an answer because I doubt too many people will bring up the usual objections. I need to have things explained.

You should've said that from the get go, that way I could've stuck to my policy of not arguing for the sake of arguing. This way, you misled us, which is immoral.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Jill]

Ok. Nevermind I used the word stalk. Imagine that there was no harassment. Camera was hidden and I was being very discreet.

[Jake_Ellison]

Ok. Nevermind I used the word stalk. Imagine that there was no harassment. Camera was hidden and I was being very discreet.

What right of yours is being violated by a stranger hiding a camera on their own property or on the property of someone who gave them permission to do so?

With public property, it gets complicated, because public roads and sidewalks violate individual rights. The best a local court can do in these conditions is allow everyone the same rights in a public space. If regular people can take photos on sidewalks and streets, so can Google. If you want to argue the stick thing, go ahead: what Greek or British law bans people from taking pictures from above a six feet height, on public roads? If there is such a law, go ahead, apply it to Google, make them shorten their stick.

[KendallJ]

If they are using means beynd the "unaided senses" is it not an act of aggression to circumvent someone's reasonable expectation of privacy?

Finally, you are admitting your are depending on the so-called right to privacy. If you create such a right, then yes. Can you define this right please? What is a right to privacy? How does it derive?

"Aggression to circumvent" is not aggression by any definition of the word. The right to privacy lets one create "forceful" out of non-forceful actions.

Ok. Nevermind I used the word stalk. Imagine that there was no harassment. Camera was hidden and I was being very discreet.

What's wrong with this? Wat right is being violated in this case?

[Zip]

So is it your contention that the government can legitimately utilize this practice (if funding for doing so was voluntary?) If there is no such thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy, and no one's property rights are techinically being violated, why not?

No, but not because the activity is illegal but because it has nothing to do with providing police services, military forces or courts.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Zip

[DavidOdden]

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.

To begin with, you have given no evidence to support your pole implication -- that the pole is "freakishly tall" -- about the last photo, so that picture has no cash value. Of course the camera is on a pole (probably about 8-9' from the ground), otherwise it would be inside the vehicle and you could not take a panoramic picture. You can easily verify that the pictures are not taken from within the vehicle with any of their pictures. So what? Second, even if it were true, you need to understand what trespass is. Property as in real estate has a very definite physical nature: you can determine its boundaries by looking on a map, and crossing that line on a 2-dimensional graph constitutes trespass. The z-axis doesn't enter into it. You can read up on trespassing and privacy for a few bucks here, with "Amy Peikoff" in the author box.

I'd also like to to defend your inclusion of the second picture. This is clearly irrelevant to any question about the propriety of Google's actions, and raises serious questions about your own motives in this line of questioning.

If they are using means beynd the "unaided senses" is it not an act of aggression to circumvent someone's reasonable expectation of privacy?

Plainly not. I wear glasses. By your definition, if I look at anyone and see them, I am initiating force. A person with a hearing aid is commiting assault by hearing a person if the hearer is wearing a hearing aid? Clearly not. Man's rights are not defined in terms of some primitivist notion of "what man can do in a bare state, excluding any products of his mind".

[Zip]

About the pole the camera is mounted on. It strikes me that it can not be any taller than the average large truck otherwise it would not be able to drive down the road. So anything that can be seen by it could be seen by anyone climbing up on the roof of a truck.

Would you be claiming an invasion of privacy if double decked buses suddenly started taking camera happy tourists down your road?

[Brule]

Somewhere in there you switched Google for government. No fair switching teams halfway through the game!

It's a bit off on a tangent to the original question, but a case could be made against government using things like infrared. That is my personal opinion though and not objectively the best situation, but a practical step similar to school vouchers as a better alternative to straight public schooling. (though still not the best solution of private education) For example, since police use infrared cameras to catch pot growers (an activity that should be legal) I would vote against them using that technology for that use. I could never make a logical argument in this case except to cite a bad law.

This is a good example of the problem with the Libertarian party. The problem is not a violation of some sort of privacy right. The problem is those bad laws that privacy may shield prosecution of. (see http://www.lp.org/issues/privacy and their "right to privacy") When you take that pragmatic approach to government and extend it to private entities such as Google, you have violated that entity's rights.

[TuringAI]

"Aggression to circumvent" is not aggression by any definition of the word. The right to privacy lets one create "forceful" out of non-forceful actions.

If there is no right to privacy for this reason, then the same could apply to certain violations of "intellectual property". You can't defend one without defending the other.

[2046]

You should've said that from the get go, that way I could've stuck to my policy of not arguing for the sake of arguing. This way, you misled us, which is immoral.

No, my motivation for asking questions was that I desired for them to be answered, not to argue for the sake of arguing.

Thus, I have to bring up basic "objections" and "counter arguments" in order to explore all the parameters of the issue, not just because I want to "start some shit."

I'm glad you did reply. Everyone was informative. Especially the z-axis statement and the unaided senses point. Thanks.

One final argument:

If a wall or a fence can only provide < 100% privacy by its physical limitations, what is to prevent me from putting a camera on a stick or getting down underneath a woman (on public property) who is wearing a skirt and photographing her voyueristically against her consent? Couldn't the same argument made for the fense be made for the skirt?

[JeffS]

If a wall or a fence can only provide < 100% privacy by its physical limitations, what is to prevent me from putting a camera on a stick or getting down underneath a woman (on public property) who is wearing a skirt and photographing her voyueristically against her consent? Couldn't the same argument made for the fense be made for the skirt?

I think the issue here is that people are taking reasonable measures to protect their privacy. The question is then, "What happens when someone takes measures to circumvent those protections?"

Yes, a fence doesn't provide 100% privacy. As I pointed out earlier, my neighbors can still see into my backyard - I realize that, and if they take pictures of me in my backyard they have not violated my privacy. However, my fence does protect my privacy from the casual passers-by. In order to take pictures of me in my backyard they would need to enter my property and peer over the fence, OR have a camera mounted high enough so that they could see over my fence from public property. I understand my privacy is not protected 100% in my backyard, that's why I don't do anything out there that I wouldn't want seen in pictures. However, my property should be protected - no one should be allowed to trespass. My fence serves its function: protect my privacy enough. Now, if I build a fence high enough so that my neighbors can't see into it, and they then take some action to circumvent that, then they have violated my right to pursue happiness. They have acted to deny me the protection I erected the fence for.

Your hypothetical woman dresses with the expectation that her clothing protects her privacy enough. It protects her against the casual passers-by. If the wind blows her skirt up, she shouldn't complain her privacy has been violated. That's unreasonable. If she walks over a grate, or glass floor, with others below, she shouldn't complain her privacy has been violated. That's unreasonable. If she sits down in such a way that she exposes herself, she shouldn't complain her privacy has been violated. That's unreasonable. In all these cases, she should understand her chosen style of dress isn't 100% effective. Her own actions can reduce the level of privacy she has. However, if someone goes to pains to circumvent her reasonable attempts at safeguarding her privacy, then she would be right in complaining. In acting (getting down underneath her) you have violated her right to the pursuit of happiness - her right to live without someone circumventing her preferred style of dress.

The same argument can be made, I believe, for using special hardware to circumvent the privacy provided by walls (e.g. infrared). People take reasonable measures to protect their right to pursue happiness by doing things they don't want others to see - they build walls, they install window covers, they have doors. None of these measures provide 100% effective protection. For example, if I choose to walk around nude in my house, I shouldn't complain that my house guests have violated my privacy because they see me. That's unreasonable. However, I can expect to be protected from others who act to circumvent my reasonable attempts at protecting that privacy. I can expect my walls, window coverings, and doors to protect me enough.

Edited May 19, 2009 by JeffS

[2046]

How does that argument differ from a "reasonable expectation of privacy" perspective?

As was stated earlier "aggression to circumvent" is not aggresion and creates a forceful action out of a non-forceful one.

Edited May 19, 2009 by 2046

[Jake_Ellison]

People take reasonable measures to protect their right to pursue happiness by doing things they don't want others to see -

Just because someone in power took the Constitution and twisted it in the past, to create a right to privacy out of thin air, and definitely not defined in a way that doesn't conflict with other rights already in the Constitution, doesn't mean we should ignore the question raised in this very thread: How is the right to privacy a right? Why shouldn't people take photos of you in your back yard, as long as they don't violate your property rights?

However, I can expect to be protected from others who act to circumvent my reasonable attempts at protecting that privacy. I can expect my walls, window coverings, and doors to protect me enough.

Reality begs to differ. (as far as your privacy goes) In fact I bet I could see your back yard right now, on Google, if I knew your address, and would have no problem thermal imaging your house to see inside. So no, you shouldn't expect that. (if you are reasonable)

Regarding being protected: you are protected, by your actual system of rights. No one can hurt you and go unpunished. As for not being seen (as opposed to being safe from force), you can expect to not be seen by people never violating your property rights if you take appropriate measures to hide.(I suggest a very deep bunker, with concealed airholes) However, asking the government to hide you instead would not be appropriate. Don't understand where the obsession with not being seen in your back yard, or not having your clothes "X rayed" comes from. I can already do an accurate computer recreation of how someone would look nude, based on a normal, clothed photo. Does that also bother you?

It really should be none of my concern, nor should it affect my rights, if people are prudes.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[JeffS]

How does that argument differ from a "reasonable expectation of privacy" perspective?

As was stated earlier "aggression to circumvent" is not aggresion and creates a forceful action out of a non-forceful one.

I don't see how aggression to circumvent is not aggression. If you're walking down the street and someone steps in your way, and continues to impede your progress even though you attempt a different route, is this not aggression?

[JeffS]

Just because someone in power took the Constitution and twisted it in the past, to create a right to privacy out of thin air, and definitely not defined in a way that doesn't conflict with other rights already in the Constitution, doesn't mean we should ignore the question raised in this very thread: How is the right to privacy a right? Why shouldn't people take photos of you in your back yard, as long as they don't violate your property rights?

I haven't argued privacy is a right.

Reality begs to differ. (as far as your privacy goes) In fact I bet I could see your back yard right now, on Google, if I knew your address, and would have no problem thermal imaging your house to see inside. So no, you shouldn't expect that. (if you are reasonable)

Of course I should expect my walls to protect my right to do what I want to do in my own home without being observed. Doing so makes me happy, and I have a right to pursue my own happiness. Most people aren't born with satellites or thermal imaging equipment. In order to circumvent my walls you would have to buy, or produce these things - in short, you would have to act with the intent of getting around my very reasonable attempts to hide what I'm doing from your innate ability to perceive it.

You seem to be arguing it's perfectly moral for anyone to take whatever measures are necessary to obtain whatever information they want from whomever they want - that no one has any right to keep any secrets. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, that would mean government would be perfectly moral in doing so as well. Is that what you're arguing? If not, then what limits the government from doing so?

Regarding being protected: you are protected, by your actual system of rights. No one can hurt you and go unpunished.

Hurt me how? Does psychological pain count? How would such pain be objectively measured?

As for not being seen (as opposed to being safe from force), you can expect to not be seen by people never violating your property rights if you take appropriate measures to hide.(I suggest a very deep bunker, with concealed airholes)

Why should I expect to not be seen in this situation? What's to stop someone from using x-ray technology, or sonar to spy on me?

However, asking the government to hide you instead would not be appropriate. Don't understand where the obsession with not being seen in your back yard, or not having your clothes "X rayed" comes from. I can already do an accurate computer recreation of how someone would look nude, based on a normal, clothed photo. Does that also bother you?

Jake, I think you need to read my post again.

[Jake_Ellison]

I haven't argued privacy is a right.

However, if someone goes to pains to circumvent her reasonable attempts at safeguarding her privacy, then she would be right in complaining. (you, in your previous post, arguing that privacy is a right)

Of course I should expect my walls to protect my right to do what I want to do in my own home without being observed. Doing so makes me happy, and I have a right to pursue my own happiness. (you, in your last post, arguing that privacy is a right)

Again, no, you don't have a right to not be observed. I have a right to observe anything I can see, through any means I can obtain, as long as it doesn't involve violating anyone's property. (as defined by laws that protect property such as land, not laws that protect privacy)

You seem to be arguing it's perfectly moral for anyone to take whatever measures are necessary to obtain whatever information they want from whomever they want

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm arguing that I have a right to do all those things, and in fact I have the right to do everything possible and imaginable, as long as I don't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty and property.

- that no one has any right to keep any secrets.

Again, you have the right to do everything possible and imaginable, as long as you don't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty and property, including what you are describing (doing your best to keep secrets).

Hurt me how? Does psychological pain count?

If actual force or the threat of force is involved, then all the consequences of such a crime (including the psychological ones), count in determining the penalty for the crime. But psychological pain has nothing to do with determining what is and what isn't a crime. A crime is that act which violates someone's right to life, liberty and property.

As for the right to pursue your own happiness, you don't have the right to infringe on my liberty while doing so. The only way for everyone to have the right to the pursuit of happiness equally (as the DoI states) is through the system of rights Ayn Rand (and others before her) describes: the right to life, liberty and property. There is no contradiction between the two, but the latter offers the only valid interpretation of the former.

I don't see how aggression to circumvent is not aggression. If you're walking down the street and someone steps in your way, and continues to impede your progress even though you attempt a different route, is this not aggression?

Nope. The problem of who has the right to be in a given space is easily determined by property rights. If there's a disagreement about who should be in that space I was headed for, the property owner can decide. (or set up rules of conduct). Of course, with public property, the owner has no ability to decide (because it lacks a conscious mind), so we have another unsolvable problem on our hands.