Google Finds No Privacy On Private Roads

there arses might get sued soon.. or they'll blame it on the photographer who will get canned.

its inveitable until they get shot. i can't wait till they do this during hunting season lol... that guys tires will be slashed and his car will be all fucked up.

don't mess with texas, or rednecks in wisconsin that pretend they are from texas, at least thats what most of the rednecks from my highschool pretended to be.
 
Private roads don't fall under prescriptive easements.

A public road is a strip of land that is owned by a city or county (or bigger goverment for things like Iinterstates). When a new subdivision goes in the file something called a plat. This takes one title to 40-40,000 acres and creates 2-100,000 indiviuale plots out of it. Hence the term sbudivision. All of the land that they want to build roads on (the road, the curbs, and then some check your plat for how wide it is, generally ~60') is then dedicated to the city or county. The city/county then agrees in exchange for them building the roads to maintain them. Gated subdivisions do not dedicate the land to city or county, but instead to a HOA, or a form of a HOA. The HOA then allows the property owners use of the easement. Alternatively, if you own a single plot of land, and you build a road on it, you still own the land under the road. If you got the city to maintain the road for you, then you might have problems with a prescripitive easement. If the city were to "accidently" maintain the road for you, then you probably wouldn't. In this case, they built a road on thier land, posted signage that said it was a private road, and google's team tresspassed on thier land. The road belongs to them, not the city.

While you are correct in your description, the HOA or coop generally does not bar the public from using it's roads, unless of course it's gated. So while it may be private, it's still publicly accessible, therefore Google vans can have access.

Google should be able to take pictures wherever a car can go on the map (roads, not offroading) without having to circumvent security gates, but that is just my oppinion.
 
While you are correct in your description, the HOA or coop generally does not bar the public from using it's roads, unless of course it's gated. So while it may be private, it's still publicly accessible, therefore Google vans can have access.

Google should be able to take pictures wherever a car can go on the map (roads, not offroading) without having to circumvent security gates, but that is just my oppinion.

The only time they donate the land to the HOA instead of the city is so they can put a gate up.

I have no problem with google taking pictures from PUBLIC property. The problem is many people think that if it is a road it is public property. It's not. If it is a PUBLIC road, then it is, if it is marked as private, it is no different than if it were grass. If they mark it as private, then it's private. That's what private means, no public. A no tresspassing sign is reduntant. You put a gate up because you are afraid people won't respect the laws. If you don't have a front door, is it suddenly some how ok for me to come inside and take pictures of the inside of your house?
 
I'm waiting for the day that Google unveils "Property view" where you can get a view of the entire property too, I mean hell if there's no fence up it's perfectly legal to walk into the backyard and film everything right?

Or Houseview! (now you better lock your doors).... otherwise Google teams will film every squarefoot of your house (then all your Texas people can shoot them though :D)
 
Ack, damn quick post...

Anyways, from what I understand its legal to film private property as long as you do it from public land (paparazzi live off this law), however if you need to go onto that private land to "get a better shot" you're trespassing which is illegal (and there doesn't need to be any signs, gates or fences up either :p).

Hey if you have a quartermile long "driveway" I'm sure you probably got the cash to sue Google, so no biggy.
 
The only time they donate the land to the HOA instead of the city is so they can put a gate up.

I have no problem with google taking pictures from PUBLIC property. The problem is many people think that if it is a road it is public property. It's not. If it is a PUBLIC road, then it is, if it is marked as private, it is no different than if it were grass. If they mark it as private, then it's private. That's what private means, no public. A no tresspassing sign is reduntant. You put a gate up because you are afraid people won't respect the laws. If you don't have a front door, is it suddenly some how ok for me to come inside and take pictures of the inside of your house?

A car can't drive through a front door and google does not map the inside of homes.

I'm waiting for the day that Google unveils "Property view" where you can get a view of the entire property too, I mean hell if there's no fence up it's perfectly legal to walk into the backyard and film everything right?

Or Houseview! (now you better lock your doors).... otherwise Google teams will film every squarefoot of your house (then all your Texas people can shoot them though :D)

Actually, every house that has not been built privately have pictures. In fact, every house with an insurance policy or tax policy will have a picture of it search-able publicly. You should even be able to get full property information from your city records. If you bought your home from a realtor market or you had renovations done, you may be able to even find inside pictures.

And as for your question about fences, HOA homes does not always have fences because the properties are deemd to be accessable by everyone. I hate this rule, because I always find kids running in my back yard.
 
Google should inventory everything, and those who does not approve, their addresses and streets should be removed from all their programs and software.

Ironically, if google did not map ones neighborhood and streets, people will be in a major uprise. Almost double standards.
 
Google should inventory everything, and those who does not approve, their addresses and streets should be removed from all their programs and software.

Ironically, if google did not map ones neighborhood and streets, people will be in a major uprise. Almost double standards.

They do remove some stuff on request, evidently. The Citigroup call center where I used to work is suspiciously absent from Google Streetview. The business park where it is located is fully mapped, but no shot with an angle that shows the building is actually there.

People get upset about being raped by a credit card company, so security there was rather tight. (I.e. we had retinal scans to get into the building, RFID to get out or move between floors.)
 
The only time they donate the land to the HOA instead of the city is so they can put a gate up.

I have no problem with google taking pictures from PUBLIC property. The problem is many people think that if it is a road it is public property. It's not. If it is a PUBLIC road, then it is, if it is marked as private, it is no different than if it were grass. If they mark it as private, then it's private. That's what private means, no public. A no tresspassing sign is reduntant. You put a gate up because you are afraid people won't respect the laws. If you don't have a front door, is it suddenly some how ok for me to come inside and take pictures of the inside of your house?

Untill you get into issues like were discussed above, easements and adverse possession.

Its not a difficult concept, its quite simular to the argument that is often brought up over intelectual property issues we see here.

Party A owns a road.
Party B drives up and down the road every day

Party A never objects, it is assumed after the statute of limitations for trespass has expired that you have implied consent for party B to use the property in such a manner and an easement is created.

Now if party A objects and persues trespass charges or makes efforts to physically block access from Party B using the road, then you have asserted your rights and the countdown to the easement stops and is reset on the next violation.

In the tech field this is the argument of trademark holders having to agressively protect their IP issues. If they are aware of and make no effort to protect their trademark they lose it to public domain, such as what happened to the terms Asprin, Zipper, Jello (not to be mistaken with Jell-o) ect. This was most reciently seen with the case of Apple objecting to the latest trademark that NYC was filing, as well as T-Mobile objecting to the use of their trademarked color in other companies marking materials.
 
A road marked private in CT is just that- PRIVATE.

Unless you have business there, you are trespassing.

See my driveway? It has "NO TRESPASSING" posted at the end of it, violate the clearly posted warning at your own risk.
 
So much for 'do no evil'.

While I agree, you have no expectation of privacy on a public street, trespassing on private land is against the law, period. It's not about the pictures, it's about the trespassing.
 
Ack, damn quick post...

Anyways, from what I understand its legal to film private property as long as you do it from public land (paparazzi live off this law), however if you need to go onto that private land to "get a better shot" you're trespassing which is illegal (and there doesn't need to be any signs, gates or fences up either :p).

Hey if you have a quartermile long "driveway" I'm sure you probably got the cash to sue Google, so no biggy.

Your understanding is absolutely correct. There is no expectation of privacy in public areas, and further, if it can be viewed from a public area where it is arguable that you had no reasonable expectation of privacy, then it is legal. So to take pictures of someone on a private beach with a telescopic lens from a perch in a tree on public land is perfectly legal. To take a picture of someone in their bathroom undressing to get a shower with the same method is not, because of the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Really it comes down to this: It doesn't matter if they're taking pictures, doing a U-turn, or stopping to take a break. To do it on private property without consent of the owner is trespassing, it's against the law, and Google shouldn't be getting away with it just because they're Google.
 
They should try keeping up with the public roads and new developments. There's neighborhoods 2-3 years old where I live and the streets aren't even on google maps.
 
Really it comes down to this: It doesn't matter if they're taking pictures, doing a U-turn, or stopping to take a break. To do it on private property without consent of the owner is trespassing, it's against the law, and Google shouldn't be getting away with it just because they're Google.

The issue really boils down to if it is really private property. As i have pointed out several times with little in a counter argument other than "but... but... but... its private property and i can shoot you if i want." there is still the matter on there likely being a public easment to right of way on the road, private or not. This is the stance that google is taking and unless the complaintant can show otherwise google will likely prevail.
 
They should try keeping up with the public roads and new developments. There's neighborhoods 2-3 years old where I live and the streets aren't even on google maps.

The new developments is likely the issue at hand. You know those developments that have fun sounding names such as Utopian Way or Glimmering shores, Those are typically private roads, and the type of road that is likely in dispute in this situation.
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I was just joking around. Relax :p I think most of us know we can only shoot someone if we have reason to feel that we or anyone on our property is in immediate danger.

I know, thing is there are alot of stupid people that believe they actually could do what they where saying and not spend the rest of thier lives in prison.

You never know, especially when there are texans around :p
 
Wow, you guys are crazy. Yes, I agree, the street view guys should not be allowed to drive on private property. That being said, private roads are *not* the same as private property, as others have said. Many government-owned roads are marked private.

As for shooting the car, camera, or driver, good luck defending that in court. Now, if the driver were actually on private property (not just a country road marked "private"), and if you had previously warned him to leave..... well, it's still not acceptable to destroy his private property or harm him. I seriously doubt those "you're allowed to shoot tresspassers" laws would actually hold up in a US court. I would hope not. There's a proper level of respose for every action. And shooting someone is almost never proper.

You obviously don't live in Texas. Joe Horn called 911 and told them he was going to open fire on the robbers NEXT door. He goes outside and blasts 'em. God bless TEXAS!

Just look up Joe Horn 911 call. You can listen for yourself.
 
wtf do people have to hide is what i want to know..

Security through obscurity son, just what I need ever gang banger in the hood to be able to shop what homes to break into on google. Dont even have to leave the house to case the place and see what looks like a secluded easy entry and what doesnt.
 
I live off of a private road that is NOT upkept or paid for by the government. It is paid for by the 4 homeowners who live off of it. As such, Google sure as hell better get our permission before come out on our private property to take pictures.
 
God bless TEXAS!
That really is amazing how a vigilante killing another person over stolen property, when the dispatcher stated the folly of doing so, can somehow be distorted into something worthy of not only supporting but the belief that [insert deity] would support such an action.
 
That really is amazing how a vigilante killing another person over stolen property, when the dispatcher stated the folly of doing so, can somehow be distorted into something worthy of not only supporting but the belief that [insert deity] would support such an action.

perhaps if the two criminals had stayed in their country of origin and not come here illegally to thieve they would still be alive today. i guess we will never know oh well.
 
Untill you get into issues like were discussed above, easements and adverse possession.

Its not a difficult concept, its quite simular to the argument that is often brought up over intelectual property issues we see here.

Party A owns a road.
Party B drives up and down the road every day

Party A never objects, it is assumed after the statute of limitations for trespass has expired that you have implied consent for party B to use the property in such a manner and an easement is created.

Now if party A objects and persues trespass charges or makes efforts to physically block access from Party B using the road, then you have asserted your rights and the countdown to the easement stops and is reset on the next violation.

In the tech field this is the argument of trademark holders having to agressively protect their IP issues. If they are aware of and make no effort to protect their trademark they lose it to public domain, such as what happened to the terms Asprin, Zipper, Jello (not to be mistaken with Jell-o) ect. This was most reciently seen with the case of Apple objecting to the latest trademark that NYC was filing, as well as T-Mobile objecting to the use of their trademarked color in other companies marking materials.

Last time I checked, they had no trespassing signs up. They violated them. /thread

Oh, and they complained immediatly after finding the violation. /thread
 
Last time I checked, they had no trespassing signs up. They violated them. /thread

Oh, and they complained immediatly after finding the violation. /thread

No Trespassing signs do nothing to stop the creation of an easement. You have to actively defend against hostile adverse posession. And once the easement has been created you can scream up and down till you are blue in the face, its too late, the public now has a right to be there and isnt trespassing.
 
oh, and the clock on the easement started and the first person without explicit business traveled down that road and there were not active attempts to prevent the use of that property. Once the time passed sufficent to create the easement passed, the easement automatically comes into effect. Now anyone can drive down that road and are technically not trespassing.

Again see my earlier remarks about gated roads that close at least once or twice a year to keep the public from accesing them to prevent any such easement
 
If this was "Microsoft Streetview" and not "Google Streetview", would everyone saying people wanting privacy should just get with the times be saying the same things?

I still think Streetview is really on the line of what should be allowed-- I think comparing photographs that are in some dusty corner office in some city hall somewhere that people have to hunt down and pay to get copies of to having your address cataloged in a database accessible from anywhere, at any time, from any computer in the world, for free, is ridiculous. Google makes a TON of money, this is not casually taking photographs from the street... at the VERY least I believe Google should have to notify the residents of an area a good amount of time (5 business days?) before they're coming to take pictures, and give clear instructions on how to "opt out" (have your pictures removed before they're even posted). Movie studios have to notify residents in areas where they'll be shooting, why shouldn't Google?
 
Hhahahah, you americans are funny, So quick to bear arms to blow the shit out of something.
Wow .. a lot of people seem to think its acceptable to shoot at someone for driving up a private driveway. That is really quite disconcerting and I'm glad I don't live there.
QFT

Although I dont find it suprising, it still bothers me that someone driving up a driveway, regardless of tresspassing, gets a gun-toting response of "Git the hail offah mah property, 'fore aww reload and shoot again". Lawd forbid someone makes a wrong turn, drives up your driveway, and gets shot in the face for disturbing your dirt/gravel before they had a chance to figure out where they were going.


Legally, you have as much right to drive on a private road as you do across thier front lawn. The law sees absolutely no difference between the two.

In other cases, I would disagree, but seeing as how google went up someones private road for buisness, theres not much to be said. Google trespassed. Though, I have to ask... So what? In the scope of things that a company can do wrong, tresspassing for a picture on an open driveway isnt exactly something that will stir up lawyers and the news. Is it wrong? Yes. Should they have done it? No. Will anyone actually do anything about this? No.
 
Personally, I think the local authorities should just follow those people around and ticket them every time they do it. Google will either stop the practice or people will stop wanting to do the job for Google unless Google is paying the fines. If the benefit outweighs the fines Google may continue, but that would likely end with them in civil court with much larger sums on the line.
Privacy may be a thing rapidly fading into history, but I would like to hold onto it a bit longer.
 
, Google’s own Vint Cerf is quoted in the article saying "there isn't any privacy, get over it."

I guess that whole "don't be evil" thing is just pr bullshit. Fuck google. Go sell out to china some more.
 
I wonder how well this works for google's Texas teams?

I was about to write, "come try to take image of my private road in Texas." First, I'll know somebody is coming down, and second, I'll have my shotgun ready. If I see it is Google I will blow the hell out of the car and confiscate the data...
 
I was about to write, "come try to take image of my private road in Texas." First, I'll know somebody is coming down, and second, I'll have my shotgun ready. If I see it is Google I will blow the hell out of the car and confiscate the data...

:rolleyes:

You guys make Texans look like fucking morons.
 
No Trespassing signs do nothing to stop the creation of an easement. You have to actively defend against hostile adverse posession. And once the easement has been created you can scream up and down till you are blue in the face, its too late, the public now has a right to be there and isnt trespassing.


Wait, I thought that was exactly what they were doing? Was defending your "magical creation of an easement". Sorry, but you don't know what your talking about.

I'm going to walk onto your property and put up a tent in your front yard. At which point your going to come home and find me. I'll then claim squatters rights. According to your logic, since I set up the tent and you didn't defend it for those 2 hours before you got home, I can do this.
 
my biggest issue is not so much the "private road" stuff, that is pretty black and white. If it says no tresspassing...you deserve whatever happens to you.

My issue is with the attitude that no one deserves privacy and we should just "get over it."

:mad:
 
Wait, I thought that was exactly what they were doing? Was defending your "magical creation of an easement". Sorry, but you don't know what your talking about.

I'm going to walk onto your property and put up a tent in your front yard. At which point your going to come home and find me. I'll then claim squatters rights. According to your logic, since I set up the tent and you didn't defend it for those 2 hours before you got home, I can do this.

That is bascially how it works. If i came home and you were there and i didnt make any efforts to stop you from using that part of my land for what ever period of time the statute (2 to 7 years for adverse possesion in most cases) calls for at the sunset of that period the squatter has the rights to in this specific example file a quiet title on that peice of property and it legally becomes theirs.

The difference between your example and mine is that the public is not claiming adverse possesion, but rather claiming a prescriptive easement, which does not transfer ownership, but rather the rights to continue use of the property in such a manner that the adverse party has been using in the past.

Easements by prescription, also called prescriptive easements, are implied easements that give the easement holder a right to use another person's property for the purpose the easement holder has used the property for a certain number of years, which varies from state to state. Prescriptive easement is not the same as adverse possession, which allows a party to acquire title to real property by asserting possession over it for the statutory period.


Again this really is only valid for "private" roads in community developments. It is highly unlikely this would take place on someones driveway. In that case it would be trespassing.
 
That is what this case is about. /thread.

Huh? Google vans do not drive in each persons drive way to take pictures... that sounds absurd and wacky.

I think you are confusing a private road with a private driveway.
 
Back
Top