Google: Complete Privacy Does Not Exist

A lawyer representing Google said, during the proceedings of a lawsuit against the company over its Street View product, said:

Today’s satellite-image technology means that even in today’s desert, complete privacy does not exist.

Despite the palpable and thunderous outrage from privacy absolutists, that is (with one caveat) a true statement. If you’re standing outside you don’t have complete privacy.
Think about it: If someone passing by on the street can see you standing in your back yard, or can see you standing in your living room through a window, you don’t have an expectation of privacy. Your are publicly visible, and as such you don’t have a right to expect that they not look at you.
Google, admittedly, has taken this to an extreme. With cameras all firmly located on publicly-accessible property they are gathering, archiving and making readily accessible to millions images of people and places from all over the world. This upsets some people who don’t want to be on the internet, but the privacy they are demanding is a level of privacy that has never existed.
It used to be that only your neighbor, or the random passer-by, would see you out mowing your lawn or sitting in your living room reader. But now there’s a potential for a Google to take a picture and put it on the internet.
Is that a good thing? I have mixed feelings, but certainly there’s nothing illegal about it under current law. If we want it to be illegal then we need to change our laws.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array pparets

    Move_Zig: Google bends over backwards not to offend it’s foreign markets. Would that include OBL and company? :)

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    If the foregoing is true, how come:

    - we can’t keep Iran from smuggling weapons and fighters into Iraq?

    - we can’t find OBL?

    - we can’t prevent smuggling of drugs or illegal aliens from infiltrating into the USA?

    Maybe it’s just a matter of priorities, hey?

  • 2Hotel9

    Perhaps the unblinking eye of scrutiny should be turned upon this lawyer. Bet your ass he will sing a different tune then.

  • 2Hotel9

    Oh, yea, and full exposure for all the execs at google who think this is such a great legal precedent.

  • robert108

    Rob: To be clear, I don’t think the govt is our source of privacy; it’s up to the individual to protect his or her privacy. There’s a reason it doesn’t appear in the Constitution. I think citizens who don’t like Google invading their privacy should take individual action to prevent Google from doing that. It shouldn’t be done through the courts.

  • http://sonofasillyperson.blogspot.com/ sonofasillyperson

    This issue is analogous to an event that happened at NDSU (at around the same time as the Saddle and Sirloin Obama/blackface incident, so it received little attention). Apparently, university employees’ salary information is public information, and available to anyone who bothers to go the university library to peruse it. The school’s newspaper did just that, then re-printed the information in the paper, so that the salaries were widely and easily available (this was probably the real reason behind someone stealing a whole buncha copies of the paper, rather than someone trying to cover up the Obama issue, as was widely speculated by local and national media).

    Similarly, no one hanging out in his front yard would consider himself free from the possibility of being, say, in the background of a photo being taken by his neighbor. But since Google takes thousands of photos from all over the world, then puts them into one consolidated space, people are freaking out. As Rob points out, Google simply “has taken to an extreme.”

    I think the more interesting debate will come when someone is caught doing something criminal or negligent by a Street View camera, and a lawyer tries to use the photo in court. It was recently ruled that information from social networking sites such as MySpace and FaceBook are fair game in trials, does that translate to permissibility of info where the data was captured in a way that was only tacitly “agreed to” (by being out in the front yard), at best? That argument is coming, I guarantee it…

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    Maybe google could be a private contractor of our CIA!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    That must be it.

  • robert108

    Interesting. I guess that knocks out Roe v Wade then, since it is based on a “right to privacy”, which Google tells us doesn’t exist.

  • 2Hotel9

    That is kinda what people are worried about. google wasted no time at all getting on their knees for the PRC’s secret police. You got to wonder who else they are feeding information to.

  • WOOFX

    As the lawyer finished his presentation he
    stepped aside and told the bailiff,

    By the way your brother’s girlfriend called and
    she wants you to bring over some X and beer.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Well, I don’t think Google is saying a right to privacy doesn’t exist. I think the point (inartfully expressed) was that you didn’t have a right to privacy in your back yard when your neighbor was looking at you any more than you’ve got a right to privacy in your back yard now that Google is looking at you.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development