Google Must Pay Woman For Showing Her Cleavage in Street View

Lebowski said:
You are out in public. You are fair game.
Click to expand...

It's funny that Canda's legal system doesn't agree with your interpretation of their laws. I mean, I don't mean to be rude, but you and the people claiming that you're "fair game" in public have like no idea what you're talking about. There's clearly a set of findings in a dispute that says otherwise, yet here you are with your fingers in your ears singing, "Lalalala! I can't hear you!"

Denial...rivers in Egypt and stuff.
 
This is a tough one, because the [H] internet tough guy squad hates big brother and invasions of privacy but the also hate women and people who sue companies

Toss up.
 
Dayaks said:
Call me ignorant, but what is getting "doxed"? Do they throw dachshunds at the person?
Click to expand...

It's when your private information (address, phone number, e-mail address, etc.) is posted online. The only reason I even mentioned it was that she is basically doxed already due to this article.
 
congrats lady. your tits are worth less than $2500 in todays market. And with the canadian dollar falling, so are your tits.
 
Fanattic said:
So does this mean in Canada you can sit naked on your front steps waving at kids that walk by on the sidewalk?
Click to expand...

I don't know about Canada, but in Oregon you have a good chance of this being protected as freedom of expression by the state constitution so long as you aren't being lewd or obscene. The Oregon protection of free speech/expression is much stronger than that provided by the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution says, ''No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatsoever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.''

And among consenting adults pretty much anything goes

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/15/us/oregon-court-broadens-free-speech-rights.html?pagewanted=1

''In this state any person can write, print, read, say, show or sell anything to a consenting adult even though that expression may be generally or universally 'obscene,' '' Justice Jones wrote.
 
One of the commenters makes a good point --

Quebec privacy, and by extension photography, laws are different from the rest of Canada. Except for a few rare exceptions you need permission to publish a photo of a person. The precedent is Aubry vs. Vice-Versa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubry_v._Éditions_Vice-Versa_inc.
Click to expand...

Moreover, the judge wasn't being irrational or anti-google. He also questions her motives and rejects any mental issues stemming from the picture (ie. she's being ridiculous):

The judge agreed that the Street View incident, while causing a shock for Grillo, did not appear to be directly connected to the mental conditions that she claimed. He also wondered why Grillo waited two years to start her legal case.
Click to expand...

That said, the judge has to apply Canadian law. Specifically, privacy laws as they apply in Quebec

Privacy buffs may also be interested to note that the court drew a contrast between the law in the United States, and its emphasis on free expression, versus what prevails in Canada and Quebec. The judge also elected to adopt a “European approach” to deciding what should count as “personal information.”
Click to expand...

In the end I think he was being fair. I am not sure how this went on, but the court basically just gave Google a small fine. I am not sure how attorneys work in Canada, but I am sure he probably charged her a lot more than $2,500 she got:

But the judge also rejected Google’s “public place” defense and said people do not forfeit their privacy rights simply by being in a location others can see them. He ordered the company to pay Grillo $2,250 plus interest and an additional $159 in court costs.
Click to expand...

This precedent will make it so that if anyone decides to sue Google over this (in Quebec anyway) they should think twice about it because they won't get much money out of it, if any. At the same time, it limits Google on how much information they can gather, and while I am a fan of Google, I know it's no saint. I think this worked out ok for both parties, and really, the public won on this one imo.
 
heatlesssun said:
So when you're standing on your own property that's now out in public for anyone to freely take pictures? I doubt that's how most people would see it.
Click to expand...

If you're exposing yourself in view of the public on your own property you're subject to decency laws.
Now if Google was peeking into her window, totally different story.
 
If standing outside makes you fair game to have your picture published all over the internet/media then why would they ever have to blur peoples faces on google maps or tv?
 
heatlesssun said:
It's kind of weird around here sometimes. So everyone if paranoid about the NSA, spying, etc. but if I person just comes up to your house and takes a picture of you at your home in whatever position, then posting that on the Internet is a okay?
Click to expand...

I don't see how those two scenario compares.

The outside view of my house is visible to anyone, I have no control over who can sees it because it's in public's view at all time. If you want to take a picture of my house from the outside, feel free to do so.

If there's anything I do not want the public to see, then I have to take it away from the public's view. You can't walk around butt naked in public and complain that people are looking at your butt.

That's different from say, NSA accessing my private emails. When you send a mail, that mail is intended only for the person you are sending to. By illegally accessing my mail which is not intended for public view, that will be a violation of my rights.

Of course if I post my email on Facebook for everyone to see, then I cannot complain because I voluntarily put that information in public's view.
 
Hornet said:
I don't see how those two scenario compares.

The outside view of my house is visible to anyone, I have no control over who can sees it because it's in public's view at all time. If you want to take a picture of my house from the outside, feel free to do so.

If there's anything I do not want the public to see, then I have to take it away from the public's view. You can't walk around butt naked in public and complain that people are looking at your butt.

That's different from say, NSA accessing my private emails. When you send a mail, that mail is intended only for the person you are sending to. By illegally accessing my mail which is not intended for public view, that will be a violation of my rights.

Of course if I post my email on Facebook for everyone to see, then I cannot complain because I voluntarily put that information in public's view.
Click to expand...

Respect for someone's request should be factored in, and forget about the whole "no expectation of privacy". If someone doesn't want their house photographed, it should be, by common courtesy, respected.

I'm tired of hearing of the law on the books. No law is perfect and laws can change. In the end, RESPECT for a person's wishes is what matters.

Want to photograph my house? I ask you not to. Don't respect my wishes and want to hide behind the "law"? Well, fuck you...you just made the world a little bit more of a hellish place to live.

I saw a guy take photos of my boys while we were at the beach. I thought it inappropriate and asked him to stop and delete the photos he already took. He apologized and showed me, photo by photo, each one deleted. We shook hands and he went on photographing other people at the beach.

What if he didn't? He'd probably be fishing out a $3,000 "lesson learned" out of the water...
 
I see nothing wrong with this decision by the judge and the law he upheld.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
So when you sue someone for wrongdoing and some random person on the internet dislikes the fact that you were awarded legitimate damages, it'll be okay for you to get "doxed" too?
Click to expand...

"doxxing" is the new passive-aggressive form of retaliation of weaklings and whiny bitches to exercise "power".

I was sort of associated with a community that has been around since it was a BBS, then a sort of unofficial successor became popular once the website was shut down and everyone jumped aboard. There was a vocal minority with an entitlement complex saying the moderators were abusive or whatever and eventually he and his family were "doxxed". A free forum. So, he had to shut down the site, not wanting to deal with the headaches, feign a serious medical condition, change his name, move, et cetera...

The road paved to Hell is filled with good intentions, eh?
 
To be honest Journal de Montréal is quite trashy, they used to have a page with woman in bras, half naked wayyyyyyyy back (before me), I saw it in a documentary lol

They are even more desesperate now..

Lolllllllllllllllllllllllll.

They could just removed the pictures. There's was a dude, drunken dead on his lawn and he asked Google to remove the frame and they did. That was in the US
 
Pezzy said:
Europeans... They have public beaches where they get nekkid, but god forbid, a picture of them sitting out next to a public road... Shame on them and Canada.
Click to expand...

What do Europeans have todo with this?
Do I need to show you a map where Canada is and where Europe is?
 
A takedown request would have been sufficient. If they would have denied the request, then she could have sued and maybe got a little more from them. I think this chick thought she was going to get rich, also I think she overvalued her breasts.

If she really stressed about her tits being on google maps, I wonder how she feels now, that they've been posted all over the net in the news articles referring to this case.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
On your front porch isn't "out in public".

To take someone's picture on their own property and publish it worldwide without their express permission is an invasion of privacy. If the police did it people would scream blue murder.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the paparazzi do this to celebrities?
 
Woman wears some slutty shirt that lets her tits hang out in public, and she deserves thousands of dollars because you looked.

Guy wears some slutty biker shorts that lets his balls hang out in public, he is labeled a sex offender and gets carted off to jail.

Only in America.
 
StormUP said:
I don't know about Canada, but in Oregon you have a good chance of this being protected as freedom of expression by the state constitution so long as you aren't being lewd or obscene. The Oregon protection of free speech/expression is much stronger than that provided by the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution says, ''No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatsoever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.''

And among consenting adults pretty much anything goes

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/15/us/oregon-court-broadens-free-speech-rights.html?pagewanted=1

''In this state any person can write, print, read, say, show or sell anything to a consenting adult even though that expression may be generally or universally 'obscene,' '' Justice Jones wrote.
Click to expand...

BTW I'm also from Oregon and it's not legal here in fact displaying yourself naked in your window will get you a knock on your door from police if the window is in reasonable public view (I had interesting college roommates). I'm not talking about walking past the window but standing there in plain view of passerby's. You will be fined as well for it same as streaking. So ya front porch on a normal street not ok.
 
Stupid judge. When you are sitting on your front porch, you should expect to be seen.
 
BladeVenom said:
Stupid judge. When you are sitting on your front porch, you should expect to be seen.
Click to expand...
If you familiarize yourself with the law in Quebec, you'll see that it's generally not legal to publish photos of people without their permission. The amount is probably not enough to even cover her legal costs, but it does indicate to Google that they have to follow the privacy law.
 
Google ought to give her what everybody gives girls in Quebec that are showing their cleavage. $1 and tuck it between her lady parts.
 
Does this give Google the right to post it now? After all, they are paying for it. they should make it their home page background with a caption "Be a whore! Earn $ 2250.00 !"
 
Ducman69 said:
Woman wears some slutty shirt that lets her tits hang out in public, and she deserves thousands of dollars because you looked.

Guy wears some slutty biker shorts that lets his balls hang out in public, he is labeled a sex offender and gets carted off to jail.

Only in America.
Click to expand...

and Canada
 
So if I have my junk out and the google car comes by, I can sue them?
 
Ducman69 said:
Woman wears some slutty shirt that lets her tits hang out in public, and she deserves thousands of dollars because you looked.

Guy wears some slutty biker shorts that lets his balls hang out in public, he is labeled a sex offender and gets carted off to jail.

Only in America.
Click to expand...

Yup! its the only country in the world where men are slaves when it comes to everything!
 
heatlesssun said:
So when you're standing on your own property that's now out in public for anyone to freely take pictures? I doubt that's how most people would see it.
Click to expand...

In the U.S. the legal definition is that anything that if a place is within view of a public place, there is no expectation of privacy.

Anyone or anything you can see from your own property or from public property, using the equipment of your choice (including telescopic lenses) is perfectly legal to take a picture of, and use however you please.

The only federal exceptions are secret/confidential military installations, and certain strategic infrastructure.

Some exceptions exist in local and state jurisdictions, which include peeping tom or indecency laws, as an example.

But yes, if where you are can be seen from anywhere public, you are considered to be in public view, and thus, no privacy.

If this woman had sued in the U.S., she probably wouldn't have gotten a payout, as she chose to dress the way she did in public, but she could probably force google to remove the images.

As always, the irony of the situation is that by suing, and it hitting the news, now millions have seen what she didn't want people to see.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041200467 said:
In the U.S. the legal definition is that anything that if a place is within view of a public place, there is no expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...
No that's not the legal definition.
 
Vorret said:
the best part is her collegue recognize her from looking at her tits...... guess we found out who the office whore is !
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you found the office pervert who can recognize women based on their tits.
sfsuphysics said:
Funny how a paparazzi with a 9 million zoom lens can take a pictures of a celebrity on private property with their tits hanging out and have it published with no recourse against them.
Click to expand...
Public figures are exempt in US law btw. US privacy laws are based on expectations to privacy. A Mayor isn't expected to share the same kinds of expectations to privacy as a random citizen. So the law protects them differently. Not sure how it works in canada but there is a reason why google censors people faces in their street view pictures.
temujin987 said:
i will run naked in front of a google street view car and sue because my penor is visible.
Click to expand...
The google car's cameras don't have enough megapixels to support that kind of zoom.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041200467 said:
As always, the irony of the situation is that by suing, and it hitting the news, now millions have seen what she didn't want people to see.
Click to expand...

She obviously doesn't care if people see her cleavage, else she wouldn't be sitting on her porch in a shirt that shows said cleavage. The fact that she sued and had news stories run just proves this fact.

She thought she saw a get-rich-quick opportunity, and thankfully was mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top