A Pittsburgh couple is suing Google for including their house in Google’s Street View service.
According to a lawsuit filed in Allegheny County’s Court of Common Pleas this week, Aaron and Christine Boring accuse Google of “intentional and/or grossly reckless invasion” of their privacy as their street is “clearly marked with a ‘Private Road’ sign.”
According to the docs at The Smoking Gun, the Borings allege that the inclusion of their house in Google Street View caused them “mental suffering” and diminished the value of their home (note they only paid $165,000 for the house). The Borings are seeking in excess of $25,000 in damages and want a court order directing Google to destroy images of their home.
Pics of the Borings house to the right and their house on Google Maps here.
The Borings are Boriiiiiing. If the court grants their wish, soon more lawsuits will follow. And we can kiss goodbye to “streetview” on online maps everywhere.
1) clearly you don’t know the value of real estate except in bloated SF..
2) this suit is stupid. Google “intentionally” did this? If they knew anything about how Google works (automation), they’d know better.
…nice how you changed to post from “the cost of a car parking space anywhere else” to “the cost of a car parking space in a large city”. -> i guess you do know.
i guess i don’t blame ‘em for trying. but it’s still stupid. judge, toss it out.
$165,000? With a pool and that much land? It must “have potential”, be a “handyman special” and maybe even “choose your own colors!” Maybe they need $25,000 for a new lawn, with sprinklers, and some landscaping.
“only paid $165,000″ – to some people who don’t live in grossly populated areas, that’s the average price for homes. Like it’s chump change to you, lol.
The suit is pretty pathetic though, but if they have signs put up around their property I don’t think google should be using the images. A nice request might have done the job, not a suit.
Real estate prices are very low in Pittsburgh. $165,000 does not mean it’s a crappy house. In fact, it’s probably very nice.
Jarel
I lived in country Western Australia for nearly 10 years, the last 5 you couldn’t buy anything for under $300k, and that’s if you were lucky. Property is only really cheap now in third world countries and the depressed rust belts of middle America. I noticed you can buy a house in Detroit for $40k for example: insanely cheap
How many days does April Fools last in Pittsburgh?
Clearly the Boring’s aren’t that educated, or have never used Google, as “Private Road” does not mean you can’t drive on it–it simply means the city doesn’t maintain it as a municiple road, and all maintenance is expected to be done by the main users of that road.
got to love their that surname…
The price is immaterial. Don’t marginalize the story based on your own value bias.
“(note they only paid $165,000 for the house, the cost of a car parking space in a large city)” It sounds like someone else wants his picture in a magazine burning benjamins to light a fake cuban
Are those pictures you posted with this story really from Street View? When I click there’s a much nicer looking house with an old cannon in front.
Whoever was driving the camera car is a moron. You can clrearly see that that road is a driveway. You have a house, a garage and anotehr building that looks like a garage, but I am sure that is a shed/work shop. And I am positive that being there physically is even MORE obvious.
I think the suit is kosher actually.
If it is a private street, no-one should be driving down it except the private owners… let alone taking pictures.
The damages here are quite reasonable too.
If standard privacy laws don’t adhere to the Goog… then damn, we’re fucked
This is yet another example of frivilous lawsuits from idiot people that can’t get past their own ignorance. Let’s look at this logically. How in teh world could these google images in any way damage their property value? Regardless of what they paid for the property, the plantiffs will have to prove exactly how 3 digital images of their home have had any realistic and depreciating effect on the current value of their property. I do agree, that the judge hearing this case would likely throw it out because of it’s obvious BS claim to mental suffering. If a photo of the outside of your home causes mental anguish of any kind, then you should A. do some mowing and yard work, and B. seek a prescription for prozac.
Just my $ .02
IDK…. their property value didnt diminish due to it, it went down from the housing market. Did they have their house on the market? And if they did how would pictures make it lose value, the people buying it surely have seen it (or they were blindfolded as they entered the private road). And do they not own any pictures of their house and/or look at it as they pull in (mental suffering).
@Duncan Riley
I used to live in Marsing, Idaho which is a vast farm land type area. When I moved from there, we sold our house for less than $150,000 I suppose you could consider that area a third world country within the US.
I guess that area would be part of the depressed rust belt in the middle of the US. Still, nobody I know has $165k for a parking space, lol.
As far as the suit goes, I’d be kinda jacked to have my house on Google, lol. You’d think it would up the value. With that yard though, that’s not the best of presentation, lol.
I hope they spend that $25,000 on a landscaper. Christ what a dump!
i see a point. if it is private street , google has no business taking pictures. It is equivalent to entering inside the home and taking living room pictures and post it on internet.
pointing “metnal stress” looks silly but you never know, law is diferrent from common sense..
Duncan,
There are many places in North America where you can buy a decent house for $165K and for many Americans $165K is even out of reach. I’m not sure why you even brought the price into this.
The suit has nothing to do with the price of the house. These people feel they clearly indicated their property as private and thier privacy wasn’t respected. How you can put a $25K price on that I have no idea and it could very well be frivilous.
Thanks,
Jaafer
Am I the only person who thinks its justified? I mean I love street view, but publicly documenting someone’s private driveway is going a little too far.
If somebody drove up my driveway with a camera and posted panoramas of my private property on the internet so everyone could see how crappy it is, blog about it and make jokes about the property value in western PA, I’d be pissed too.
The private road is private property. The people driving the google car trespassed on private property to take the pictures. Now whether or not that could reduce property values I don’t know.
As for a $125,000 home, where I”m from that would buy a 3 bedroom house.
FYI – The AVERAGE home price in the USA is about $200k.
One man’s castle is another man’s damp. And vice versa.
@21
But what we don’t know is if they jumped right to lawsuit or if they contacted Google directly with their request to have the pictures removed.
If the prior, frivolous.
If the latter, interesting issue that can set a precedent.
I guess this depends on whether the private road is on private property. It’s usually the case, but not always. If this road is indeed on private property, Google had no business photographing from the road, if it isn’t private property, then it’s fair game.
The Borings do have this going though, it’s pretty clear this road transitions into their driveway at the treeline. Google should’ve stopped shooting at that point. Take special note of this: the house is still in clear view at the treeline, but their pool isn’t. Maybe the Borings are really trying to hide the fact that they didn’t have a building permit for it? It’s not on the satellite view (and the garages are obscured by the trees).
But mental anguish and reckless invasion? That’s a little extreme.
What does the price of their home even matter?
$165,000 is a reasonable price for an average home in almost all of America minus large cities. I think you’re a little out of touch…
North Oaks, MN, a community of about 4,000 is on privately held land. The Google cars came in and took photos for Street View, but the photos were removed after the mayor requested Google to remove them.
“…note they only paid $165,000 for the house, the cost of a car parking space in a large city…” Not everyone lives in a big city, I am with Dustin, don’t be a douche, I am sure $165K is a lot to them, I live in SF and $165K is still a lot to me.
Good for them. This invasion of privacy is way out of control.
I’m with the Dustin and a few others on this matter. Why does price have anything to do with it? I live in one of the fastest growing cities in the US and work for a company that has been featured in INC 500’s list of fastest growing privately held companies for the last 3 years. The average housing cost where I live is probably shy of 165k and I would most certainly not consider this a third world country or a depressed rust belt of middle america.
Your statement suggests that if the house were a ridiculous 5 million dollar massion owned by some over-compensating celebrity, that the case might have a leg to stand on or that at least the Brorings might have been justified in their suit. As if the rich are the only ones afforded the decency of privacy.
Blaksheep – so where do you live?
Findlay, Ohio. I was afraid I might have misspoken about being “one of the fastest growing cities in the US”, but it’s cited on Wikipedia as well, with the key word I forgot being a “mid-population”.
Bringing the price of the house into it is irrelevant IMO.
Just for comparison, the average price of a house here in the UK is around £200k (around $400k)
But that’s because London is the most stupidly overpriced, overpopulated dump in the world. And prices are going to drop soon.
Then, sensible people like me who didn’t lie and overstretch to get a mortgage over the last few years can buy when they hit reasonable prices.
I’m with a lot of other people here. The price shouldn’t matter. It’s not a dump at all. They have land, which is worth a lot in most places. Anyone who was say it was “only $165 K” is clearly out of touch with the rural U.S. In fact, outside of where I live now, I don’t know anyone who owns a house much more than that, if even that, and I’d say that they have nice house. At least they have a house and land.
I also agree that if it’s on private property and a private road (i.e. it looks like a driveway), Google had no business adding it to street view, yet, doing it “intentionally” and it causing their home value to drop is a little much.
I certainly don’t own my own house, yet to me $165k is quite a lot of money, but I certainly don’t think that the house value is the issue here.
The fact that Google has been on their property is the issue, and unfortunately there are no fences as shown, BUT it does look as though Google has infact trespassed on their property. If someone was to come onto my property, without permission, take photos, and then publish them on the internet without my permission is a breach of my privacy to an extent.
I certainly wouldn’t have gone to a lawsuit straight away, I would have approached Google first and asked for them to be removed, and if they said no, then I would go for a lawsuit.
Every person has a right to privacy, and Google taking photos of a property without permission is just asking for trouble in my opinion.
Wow – this is news on techcrunch?
C’mon – a seemingly frivolous suit brought against a corp giant – doesn’t this happen everyday?
And really – since when did comparing land prices in rural areas vs parking spot costs in dense cities b/c a measure of anything.
Lets all hope for better “news” in the future.
The photos are no longer on street view. The location is at the end of Oakridge Lane and have been removed.
When did this happen?
@8 – you stole my thunder! Seriously, Boring? Damages for pictures? Guess all those traffic cameras are causing serious car depreciation too.
I do not understand how the photos diminish the house’s value, given that a buyer would usually view the house themselves anyway. Lots of houses can be seen on the Internet via estate agents’ websites as well.
The privacy complaint seems more valid, but is it really worth suing over? I don’t believe so.
What a pathetic frivilous lawsuit. Here’s an idea. You don’t like the value of your home being “depressed” by Google? CLEAN IT UP.
Just judging from the pictures, let’s see…
Miracle Gro, Scotts Guard grass seed, a lawn mower, some paint, pool cleaning supplies, Windex (for the windows), some vanity landscaping supplies (like the rocks and the little walk lights you stick into the ground), perhaps some flowers for around the edge of the buildings…
I’m sure Walmart would appreciate the business – though instead of suing Google for “depressing” the value of their property they’d then have to sue the city for raising their property taxes once the value goes up!
Sheesh.
Dan
average house price in UK (by house meaning detached dwelling) is £342,800 or $681,000 USD
http://news.bbc...html/houses.stm
Average house price in the US q4 2007 was 217,800 but $342,300 in the West.
The photos on Google Maps are actually quite nice. I cannot see how it damaged their property value at all. The photos posted here on Tech Crunch don’t look too great though. At any rate, I do not see the relevance in the cost of their home. Mine cost ONLY $148K. Of course, that was 10 years ago and it is valued at $302 now. What is your point exactly? I am in agreement with the homeowner. I recently found photos of my home on zillow.com and was incensed. Although I do not think it has any positive or negative effect on the value, it DOES feel like an invasion of privacy
Okay so it seems the images are removed now. Also, out of curiosity I went up and down the road looking for a sign that said “Private Property” or “Private Road” or “No Trespassing” and I was unable to find one. If that is the case, then it would seem the same images the Borrings are suing over would be the evidence against their claim. By the looks of the other houses on the street though it would seem the only thing hurting their home value would be the look compared to the rest of the neighborhood.
I live in the county next to Allegheny and $165,000 is a bit above the average price in my neighborhood. These are decent houses, but certainly not extra fancy. I don’t specifically know this neighborhood, but I would guess it’s actually a decent house.
Yeah Duncan, I would just say you’re just a bit out of touch with house prices outside the California coast. You can get a fairly nice house for that price down here in Texas. This includes 1) good location 2) good schools 3) not in some podunk town 4) good build quality 5) decent square footage (2,000+).
400k (even in a large city such as San Antonio) will get you a wonderful house out in suburban hill-country with a big yard, at least 3,500 square feet, some of the best schools in the area, and right up the street from the country club.
You should also probably use median house price instead of average house price for an area. It tends to get rid of the outliers in your dataset.
This is really sad and pathetic, I hope they lose miserably.
-Check out my site for ways to make money online http://mikesmon...ub.blogspot.com
400k wont even get you a condo in southern california.
You know, if thier property wasn’t a stinking hole, maybe the property accessor – the only person who can ACTUALLY ‘devalue’ the property wouldn’t devalue it.
I’d have to say that “only $165k” sounds like a reasonable statement to me, especially considering the average price of a house.
I live in the heart of Salt Lake City, Utah, and I see houses that run way above that. I think the least expensive one I found while house hunting a few weeks ago was $125k. My parents bought theirs for $80k back in the 80’s, and now it’s nearing around $200k. Right now my husband and I are renting a 2 bedroom, 1 bath duplex that doesn’t have a back yard (it’s a parking area) and we pay $700 a month for it. The bedrooms are small, the kitchen is small, and we can’t even have a washer or dryer. Prices here are ridiculous.