Google Fined For Street View That Shows Woman’s Cleavage
[su_right_ad]Google will have to pay the woman $2,250 to settle the case.
The image showed the woman, Maria Pia Grillo, sitting on a step outside her house, leaning forward with her elbows resting on her knees. In the picture she was wearing a low-cut top that left “part of her breast” exposed.
Although her face was blurred out, she was still identifiable – particularly as her car was parked in the driveway without the licence plate number blurred out.
Grillo filed a lawsuit in 2011 asking Google to blur out more of the image, including most of her body and her licence plate.
She also demanded to be paid $45,000 (£25,000) for the depression she had suffered, after her coworkers at “a well-known bank” discovered the image and derided her for it.Google agreed to blur out the photo when the lawsuit was filed, but refused to pay Grillo compensation on the grounds that she was in a public place when the photo was taken.
The company also said that it was not responsible for any emotional damage Grillo may have suffered.
However, a Quebecois court in Montreal has now ruled that, despite being in public, Grillo’s privacy had been disrespected and that her “modesty and dignity” had been violated.[su_csky_ad]
tiredoftea October 31st, 2014 at 3:52 pm
So, on the gay guy sending pics, LL had a soft porn pic of a woman. Now, we get a google mapping SUV? Where’s the fairness??
ChrisVosburg October 31st, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Down the pub, we’ve been poking fun at one of the regulars, who was inadvertently captured in a google streetview snap, loitering next to the pay phone out front, looking for all the world like a drug dealer waiting for a ring.
And elsewhere, google captured something unexpected when it snapped a pic of my apartment building (pictured below). The jays in the neighborhood are fiercely territorial.
bpollen October 31st, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Her right to privacy was not abrogated, she was in public. Public and private are antonyms. Any “modesty and dignity” were violated by her being in public, not in the taking of a picture. You don’t want your picture on Google Maps or Google Earth, no problem. They will blur you out. If your friends and coworkers tease you about it, that’s on them, not Google.
I can’t believe I am actually defending Google…
tiredoftea October 31st, 2014 at 5:43 pm
Well, they weren’t being evil, were they?
bpollen November 1st, 2014 at 2:59 am
While I don’t have any evidence to the contrary, I have this nagging feeling that maybe they are being so subtly evil that I just can’t detect it. My evil detector keeps pointing at the Catholic Church… ;-]
BrianW October 31st, 2014 at 8:35 pm
I can show you Google Street Views that travel down remote dirt roads in areas with populations of less than 500 people. But if you are one of these people living down one of these remote dirt roads out for a walk in the AM and you see the Google car making it’s way into your neighborhood, while you might officially be in a “public area”, it sure feels like a violation of privacy. I for one am glad to hear about Google’s spanking, now let’s tie that company up and bring out the whips and chains–Google’s got me feeling voyeuristic.
bpollen November 1st, 2014 at 2:51 am
“while you might officially be in a “public area”, it sure feels like a violation of privacy.”
I thank you for making my point. If you are “officially” in public, you have no expectation of privacy even if your feelings are hurt. I am not saying that those feelings are unjustified, just that your feelings aren’t really pertinent in determining whether an actual violation of privacy occurred. Every online communication, every phone call you make, is recorded by the NSA (without a warrant.) And Google is the bad guy cuz they took a picture?
BrianW November 25th, 2014 at 9:44 am
What is public about being a mile down a dirt road that has four homes total on it? Not exactly Times Square, bpollen. Yes, Google is bad for traveling way up into the remote areas where I live a quiet existence and snapping photos of me while I am out for morning walks down remote roads in the woods, roads which are four hours from any city. Yes, it is a violation of MY privacy, just not of yours.
bpollen November 25th, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Only in your head is it a violation of your privacy. If I can see you from public property, my viewing of you does not ACTUALLY violate your privacy or your right to it.
Let me put this fairly simply. “Public” and “Private” are antonyms, which are words that mean the OPPOSITE of each other. Unless this road you refer to is a PRIVATE road, you are on a PUBLIC road. Ergo, no violation of your right to privacy can occur because you are in PUBLIC.
What’s next? A life-sized miniature replica of the Taj Mahal? An air-filled vacuum?
BrianW November 25th, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Thank you, it is all so clear to me now. I actually do not own a dictionary, so having you explain to me the difference between the words private and public was the big convincer here. I am so glad you are only here online as you appear completely unable to observe things from my perspective. You’d be a crap neighbor out here in the country as people who use words like ergo when “putting someone in their place” during a conversation tend to be shunned or placed into the yoke. But really, thanks for putting it simply.
bpollen November 26th, 2014 at 2:00 am
Why, thank you! In the future, I will forgo the use of ergo in conversation with you and the brethren. Here I was laboring under the delusion that you didn’t understand the difference because you consistently complain that you should have an expectation of privacy when in public simply because it is rural. And I am so pleased to learn that you live in such an enlightened area that still uses public shunning and humiliation to mediate disagreement. Yet they still have the internet. Seems as if wonders will NEVER cease. Might want to pick yourself up a dictionotomy to look up them big four letter words like ‘ergo’ so you can use gooder werds when yew cast asparagus on my nayborleenesss.
fancypants November 1st, 2014 at 3:21 am
somebody got their white knuckle ride at no extra charge
tracey marie October 31st, 2014 at 9:10 pm
sitting on her front stoop, who knew that makes her open to an assault on her self and privacy
bpollen November 1st, 2014 at 2:36 am
Assault on her self? Are you claiming that Google physically attacked her? Because cameras capture reflected light and have no physical contact with said reflective objects. Therefore there was no assault on her person unless the photographer or his evil minions attacked her.
Assault on her privacy? What part of “in public” is confusing you? Because you cannot have any realistic expectation of privacy whey you are IN PUBLIC.
Jones October 31st, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Google can afford it, but this will open the door for similar suits. Seems pretty frivolous to me.
tracey marie October 31st, 2014 at 9:09 pm
your address, license plate number, car type and a shot of your breasts is frivolous and not worthy of recompass, why?
Jones October 31st, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Google agreed to blur out the photo.
tracey marie October 31st, 2014 at 9:49 pm
so what, only after they released the picture.
Jones October 31st, 2014 at 11:04 pm
Sorry, I side with Google on this. Porches and license tags aren’t private.
BrianW October 31st, 2014 at 8:21 pm
Google seemed to start out as such a forward-thinking modern day company, but has really shown itself to be an out of control greedmonger like most of corporate America is. It is bad enough they wish to post online photos of some formerly quiet and somewhat private areas of people’s neighborhoods, but if they include without consent photos of people AND their vehicle license plate numbers, and even a little cleavage, they should expect to pony up a little recompense. I wouldn’t want them making money off of MY cleavage, man-boobs though it is.
rg9rts November 1st, 2014 at 1:55 am
Must have been some cleavage