Google Damages Property Values?

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. kit
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

   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.

2. rvb1977
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

   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.

3. rvb1977
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

   …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.

4. Tereasa
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

   $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.

5. Jarel
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

   “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.

6. Jetski
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

   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.

7. Duncan Riley
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

   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

8. Knowledge is power
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

   How many days does April Fools last in Pittsburgh?

9. Chris
   

   April 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

   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.

10. diystartupnews.com
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    got to love their that surname…

11. John S.
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    The price is immaterial. Don’t marginalize the story based on your own value bias.

12. Miller
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    “(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

13. Scott Yates
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

    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.

14. Alexandar Tzanov
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    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.

15. Jeesh
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    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

16. Jeff
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    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

17. jaike
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    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).

18. Jarel
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    @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.

19. Fish
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    I hope they spend that $25,000 on a landscaper. Christ what a dump!

20. velioncho
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    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..

21. Jaafer Haidar
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    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

22. Ron
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    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.

23. jccalhoun
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    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.

24. clayz
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    FYI - The AVERAGE home price in the USA is about $200k.

    One man’s castle is another man’s damp. And vice versa.

25. Mike
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    @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.

26. Moo Cow
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    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.

27. Dustin
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    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…

28. Josh Roben
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    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.

29. Phil
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    “…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.

30. Tom
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Good for them. This invasion of privacy is way out of control.

31. Blaksheep
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    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.

32. Steve
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

    Blaksheep - so where do you live?

33. Blaksheep
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    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”.

34. Dan
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    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.

35. Melissa
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    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.

36. Andrew
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    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.

37. Steve
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    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.

38. anon-guy
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    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?

39. AJ Kohn
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    @8 - you stole my thunder! Seriously, Boring? Damages for pictures? Guess all those traffic cameras are causing serious car depreciation too.

40. Richard Brennan
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    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.

41. Dan Schulz
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    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.

42. Duncan Riley
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    Dan
    average house price in UK (by house meaning detached dwelling) is £342,800 or $681,000 USD
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared.....houses.stm

    Average house price in the US q4 2007 was 217,800 but $342,300 in the West.

43. Lee
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    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

44. Jeff
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    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.

45. Kevin Stecko
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    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.

46. Chris
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    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.

47. Michael Bakovic
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    This is really sad and pathetic, I hope they lose miserably.

    -Check out my site for ways to make money online http://mikesmoneyclub.blogspot.com

48. CARversation.com
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    400k wont even get you a condo in southern california.

49. Jason Knight
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    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.

50. Sirielia
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    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.

51. Louis-Eric
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    The only semi-congruent argument that they could bring on the issue is to claim that the pictures of the Boring Estate were so bad and so widely disseminated that they have become the recognized standard for the representation of the house in the public mind, instead of a fairer depiction of the buildings and grounds. Tenuous argument at best, though.

52. Lawrence Salberg
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    Their home price has nothing to do with it. But, I’m a little unclear as to how much privacy is being violated. Did someone actually trespass on their little private road?

    Generally, items in public view are for public consumption (for photos) and can even be published without permission if no profit is being made.

    But Google is, of course, making profit. Not $25,000 of profit on this one property. But the project itself is, ideally, going to make them a profit. And they didn’t get the homeowner’s permission.

    Mike, you are an attorney. What’s your legal opinion?

    Also, considering the increasing power of today’s digital cameras, at what point does a simple idyllic street scene invade someone’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Considering that these pics are just drive-bys, and that the backyard is fairly open, what if the folks were out and about sunbathing, or just playing catch with their kids? I don’t think most of us would think that some spy vehicle would be driving by and posting our pics on the world wide web. Even so, as a random pic, that would be one thing. But one that details our physical address? That’s a bit creepy, especially for those of us who have children.

    How long before child molesters start using such databases (if they haven’t already) to easily determine who has kids and approximately what ages - without even venturing outside their computer? Victim scoping from home?

    I think the Borings are a bit paranoid. But, on the other hand, maybe someone needs to reel Google in a bit. What the hell is the purpose of this totally anal and geeky project anyway? You can almost see the nerds at Google sitting around dreaming this one up.

    Geek: “Hey, dudes! What if we hire toadies to drive around the country and capture street level pics and stick them into a giant database, all tied to Google maps. Wouldn’t that so be coolicious?”

    Google Mgmt: “What would be the purpose? Who would even look at that crap? How will we ever make a buck off this? What if someone sues us?”

    Geek: “Did you hear what I said? It would be rockin’. Geek motto is ‘If you can do it, you should.’ Purpose and Profit has no place being discussed!”

    Google Mgmt: “Right! What were we thinking? That would be super cool, geekboy. Project approved! Go get your MacBook and let’s geek-rig a mini-van today and try it out in my own neighborhood. Scratch that. Your neighborhood!”

53. Tom
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    This is a civil suit, not a criminal suit so “criminal trespass” doesn’t apply. Invasion of Privacy/Violation of Privacy is geared toward taking images/video of someone who is indecent(full/partial nudity) without there knowledge or consent. A civil suit will be hard win, without a proper criminal trespass suit(knowingly enters a secured area you shouldn’t be in).

    Seems to me someone is trying to take bits and pieces of several laws, patch together a shotty case because they heard the name G$$gle.

    If they win this, I have about 4 suits against planes/satellites that took pictures of my house, we should turn this into a class action right now against camera makers, damn Nikon and Canon.

54. Matt
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    Who cares how much they paid for their house… in America private property means something. Google is responsible for it’s contractors… that’s business… they should have made it a big deal to ensure there was no violation of public property… you can be shot for that in some red states. lol

    i like the google… i like the maps… i think the streetview has got us all a little geek-drunk and we should have sufficed with maps… this street view combined with the cia shit… it’s too much for me… at some point google must not be so encouraged and defended by geekdom for everything… street view is kind of the devil… they needn’t troll neighborhoods… downtowns and market centers… hellz yeah… but stay the hell out of peoples neighborhoods… to defend this is just… well, creepy.

55. Matt
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    @#7 … you should try it out.. you know.. for fun, buy one with your “generates insane pageviews” bonus… a “rust belt” adventure if you will… be sure to bring that comment with you… the rest belt part, when you show up to your housewarming party in detroit.

    live blog it, will ya? (ustream if possible… dunno if the rust belt has broadband… i guess we’ll all find out when you blog about it.) you might get buzzed again… wouldn’t that be rockin’ ?

    

56. Joel
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    Stupid frivolous lawsuit. If it’s a private road have a locked gate.

57. mitch
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    Do you have to talk about every story Google is metioned in?

58. Jedi Wright
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    @Duncan/Miller:

    Just bear in mind that this western PA property value would easily go for triple that_at_least, here in most moderate-heavily populated CA areas. And with 2 outlying garage’s, pool and probably at least a few acres…this could easily go for $750k. I’ve seen far worse/smaller properties on the market here in Los Angeles for far, far more.

    Someone living as far out as these homeowners have chosen to are well within their rights to ask for what they have. People who cherish their privacy will understandably will go to great lengths to protect it.

    Perhaps the $ amount in damages doesn’t sit right for some, but either way I’d bet the couple is more concerned with just making things right for the intrusion they feel has been made into their lives.

    Google should start showing some respect to the rest of the world…not every inch of it is their’s to catalog for the rest of the world’s viewing pleasure.

59. mobilekick.com
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Why do lawyers still excist? IMO they should be slaughtered, so stupid people can’t get money anymore and they can die in a fire.

60. Randy
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

    It’s gone!

61. Ray
    

    April 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    I live near Pittsburgh. A small-to-medium somewhat dumpy house on 2 acres would go for around $125-$150 tops, way less as you get farther from the city.

62. Ray Richard
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 12:23 am

    So The Duncan again managed to get reader engagement by making 50 of you discuss real estate prices in various parts of the world.

    Wasn’t the actual topic Google’s invasion of privacy (trespassing)?

    Great Google spin.

    I guess Google pays TechCrunch for crunching anybody but Google.

63. Peter Cooper
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 4:09 am

    Is absolute value an indicator of how righteous a lawsuit is? If someone gets screwed for “only” $10k, is that somehow less worth pursuing than if they were screwed for $100k? If you’re wealthy, maybe, but it’s worth recognizing there’s a principle at stake in many lawsuits, not just a particular amount of dollars.

64. Zoli Erdos
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 4:39 am

    The Google Streetview version of the property is actually more attractive than the original photos
    Joke apart, I have previously questioned the rationale of expanding Streetview to rural areas:

    “In a typical city, street photos do carry information: shops, cafes, portals, public buildings ..etc. Google needs to balance the usefulness of information against privacy concerns, and as a result, it started masking the faces of people who accidentally just happen to be photographed. But what’s the point of shooting rural neighborhoods I’ve just shown above? They are often secluded developments, not even part of any township at all, where there is no public / tourist traffic - you take a county road in the woods, and only drive there if you live there or visit someone. What’s the “use case” here?“

65. Google censors
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 5:28 am

    Interestingly, google has decided to censor the images. By clicking on the link from the post you are taken a block down the street, you can move towards the house and see it from about 300 yards away and then it says “image not available”. With the threat of a lawsuit, you can get google to change their imaging data.

66. Certainly
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 6:44 am

    @ 36 Andrew

    Certainly a certainly overload. Certainly.

    and

    @64 — there doesn’t need to be a “use case”, it’s public property McCarthy.

67. m0
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 6:48 am

    Sorry I have to….flame me if you need to…

    I noticed someone pointing out how this is being “marginalized”, the story that is……

    What’s marginalized is our collective rights, please bitch about the correct issues here.

    Google wouldn’t even have these images had they not paid for them, thusly, had privacy been any concern at all for congress, 75% of google’s map images would not exist, because the DoD and Pentagon would have been barred from SELLING these images to private concerns.

    What these two morons fail to realize, like most responders on these articles, is that your ideas of “rights” in this country….are not shared by your govt.!- imagine that

    Therefore, this point is moot…..the almighty bottom line would be hurt by your “rights”, and so, they were sold off too. Do some research fools.

    As for the Borings, they are ignorant, greedy fops who hopefully will lose more money on this damned silly endeavor.

    a quote I love: “You might wanna make sure you ARE the righteous before becoming indignant…”

68. Broofa
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 7:36 am

    Home price is not an issue here - it’s a matter of privacy.

    The road is a gravel road, with no clear delineation between where the public right of way ends and the private property begins. No where on Oakridge lane is there a sign that says “private road” (at least, not in the photos taken by the Google Streets car). There is one photo taken from w/in the Boring’s driveway (i.e. from within the 50′ rightofway mentioned in the lawsuit) - and that was probably taken as the car was trying to turn around after discovering they had reached a dead end.

    If the Boring’s complaint is simply over privacy, one would assume that removing the pictures from Google Streets (as Google has) would be all that is required for them to drop the lawsuit. Although filing a suit to accomplish this seems a bit silly. There is no mention of them trying to contact Google prior to this to have the pictures removed. Or of telling the Google Streets car to leave their property. i.e. if a trespass did occur it was most likely for the most benign of reasons, and the Borings are just overreacting. Hopefully any reasonable court will see that.

69. Me
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 7:53 am

    are you sure its Google or the last name that’s decreasing the value
    I mean suing Google over a picture of your house doesn’t sound fun
    ok enough with the jokes
    If infact it was a private road then Google probably should have not taken the picture but they should have asked nicely
    not sued for the removal

70. Prof Gubler
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 8:07 am

    I think these people have a right to have these pictures taken down since it was private property whether it was marked or not it is private property. However, suing google is another matter.

    As for Duncan, I will give you a break cause you live in Australia and might not know about the mortgage mess. But, California is the state along with Nevada and Florida with the most foreclosures. These “smart” Californians who get into way too much debt, then dump it on the government who then dumps it on the tax payer are the ones who should be made fun of not the “American Rust Belt”. I say if someone ones a house they can afford and it is cheap, then they are not the person to be made fun of, but instead the person with the expensive house in Silicon Valley who is going to make me pay for it.

71. wayne lambright
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Private property is just that, Private. However if the photo was taken on public property, the answer seems clear.

72. Dimitry
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 8:32 am

    Won’t hold up. Allegheny County has a picture of almost all properties on their website (which got some heat early on, but it’s still up years later).

    http://www2.county.allegheny.p.....Search.asp

    This isn’t much different.

73. John Wesley
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    The funny thing is you guys got scooped by Valleywag on this one.

74. Sunil
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am

    This news on Techcrunch.

75. Xavier
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am

    The picture isn’t showing up anymore. Says it’s unavailable.

76. Adam
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Duncan: “depressed rust belts of middle America”

    Damn you’re a jackass. Have you ever been anywhere else in the US except for the coasts? Decent houses can be had for $165,000 now. Comparing the prices to Australia, UK, and SF is quite silly. There is room to build in the Midwest, so we don’t have to shell out millions for regular houses.

    Anyway, while I don’t think Street View affected their property value, Google had to right to trespass on. I’m glad they took the images down.

77. Paul
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 9:44 am

    From what I understand photos are allowed of private property if taken from public property. Build a fence next time.

78. Erick
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am

    @Duncan -

    Your west coast elitism sucks My house cost me 135,000 and its 1200 sq ft and .75 acres in Ohio. My house wont fall into the ocean either so mine’s literally worth more than yours.

79. Matt
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    The fact that Google hasn’t removed the photos of the rest of the homes on that street tells me that their lawyers have looked into this and have determined that the Borings have no case.

80. Granville
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    I guess Microsoft’s really in for it then. The latest areal views on live maps “birdseye view” of my neck of the woods are about as good as as Street level view, and cover all my property, not just what you can see from the driveway…

81. aandarian
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    I think this is a really good example of what kind of issues we’ll be looking in the future with street view, birdseye view.

82. Kevin
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    I think that the point that was missed is that Google offers a mechanism right on the streetview to request that a picture be removed. It takes under a minute to request that the pictures be taken out of Google’s system. No lawsuit needed. This whole thing is ridiculous.

83. Sam
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    If it is private property, you can still go on it unless it also says “No Trespassing.” Otherwise, it would be a crime to go anywhere but the streets.

84. mary
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    Hats off to the Borings…Who cares what they paid for the house. Thats whats wrong in corporate USA. So they would be warranted had they owned a 2.5 million dollar “bungalow”? All houses are made of the same materials. Some materials are of better quality, but a house is a house is a house. Some people are also of better quality and I respect anyone who has the balls to take on the burden of fighting for any right they deserve..be it privacy or whatever. I am fully aware that when I sit at my dining room table ..someone somewhere probably can read the ingredient label and print it for public knowledge if they can make a buck from it, but my 4.99 bottle of Paul Mason is’nt going to draw much attention but it is wrong non the less and good job for calling Google out. Oh and by the way…so what if the property office publishes pics of the house..thats their interest. If the Borings want someone to know how to get to there house they’ll call 911 if it’s an emergency or if it’s an invited guest they will provide the directions. If it’s an uninvited guest I say stay the hell off the property. You go Aaron and Christie!

85. j
    

    April 5th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    sam 83.
    I dont think Im mistaken when I say that law states that one is allowed to take photos of anything and anyone in public land. But if you go into someones land, you have to request permission.
    Borings will lose, they shouldnt be asking for 25mil but 25 billion. I dont mean to say I want to dent Google (who could keep on losing lawsuits like this without blinking) but with the amount of power they are gathering, they are starting to need to respect the kinds of laws that we fight so hard to get governments to respect. From the posts above I realize that most of us have forgotten that principle; funny, is it alright for a company to trample over our right of privacy ?

86. Mike
    

    April 6th, 2008 at 2:31 am

    As you can easily see from the pictures themselves, there is no “Private Road” sign visible anywhere. If it’s a public road, or a road that allows public access, then Google and anybody else can take pictures of whatever they want.

    I think as a courtesy, Google still removes pictures; they seem to have removed the pictures of the Borings’s house.

87. Vacation Rentals
    

    April 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am

    I’d like to see a picture leading up to the driveway. How is Goolge getting these pictures anyways? Is someone just cruising around in a car with a high speed camera?

88. RP
    

    April 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    I would like to see Eric Shmidt, Larry Page, Sergey Brin’s homes street photos. Can I stand in front of Google offices and take pictures all day long and post on the web?

    I think we are pushing some limits here. A home will always happen to be in public view…but you cannot have drive-bys taking pictures and posting on the internet.

89. Originally from Back East
    

    April 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    Having grown up in Northwestern PA (before I wisely got the heck outta there), I can assure you that $165K for a house is actually pretty good. Is probably a fairly nice place. 100K is about average there.

90. Mac from UK
    

    April 7th, 2008 at 2:36 am

    Yet again we here in the UK see non-sensical law suits being made in the name of justice that end up being copied over here years later. I think courts have enough on their plates dealing with proper claims, I also think that the amount of $25,000 is too small, it should be much higher and given to the Borings neighbours for their mental anguish and pain for having to look at state of the property each time they drive by.

    Grow up America the rest of the world is laughing?

91. Average Joe
    

    April 7th, 2008 at 6:05 am

    I believe anything that I can see while on public land (or on land tht I have permission to be on) without having to move anything out of the way can be recorded for my personal use. If it does not contain any actual images of people, then I should be able to publish the recordings. If there are people in the recordings, then I should have to have their permission if they were on their own private property. As for standing outside the Google offices all day with a camera, go for it, jut don’t photograph the people.

    As for the price of houses, I live in a small urban region in Western PA and am well paid for the area (about 150% of the average per capita), but I still wouldn’t be able to afford $165,000 for a house (mine cost me under $60k in 1998). Personnaly, I don’t think anyone should pay more than about 3 times their annual gross for a house.

92. Alan
    

    April 7th, 2008 at 6:22 am

    “Private” means… well, PRIVATE. If there are ‘No Trespassing’ signs on the road then the Goog is guilty of violating these folks’ rights. If not, well, they should put up a sign or two. Still, I can’t see how they’re suffering. Maybe it’s the embarrassment from that nasty-looking lawn?

    As to $165,000 for a house… wow, that’s a ton of money. I only gave $23,600 for a brand new home back in November of 1998. Two brdm, 1 bath, 6 wheels. Hey, it’s comfy for a bachelor!

    AB

93. Kevin
    

    April 7th, 2008 at 7:30 am

    It’s pretty clearly private property, so I don’t know how relevant a sign (or lack thereof) really is. I don’t have a private property sign inside my home, yet I have a reasonable expectation that strangers will not invite themselves in to take pictures of my living room.

    Posting the home price in such an opinionated manner speaks to the ignorance of the poster (those discussing price variance by area have the right idea). The fact that the home price is the subject of so much attention reveals a misunderstanding of the actual issue and actual story.

    I do not live in the US myself, but I am aware the lawsuits are quite common, and are often the only recourse a person may have. The sum in question is surely a nuisance amount to Google, and considering other, more ridiculous, lawsuit history I’m sure we’ve all seen, if anything I’m surprised the amount is so low. If we assume it includes legal costs, the couple may not actualy see a cent themselves should they succeed.

    Sometimes the principle of a lawsuit is more important than the speciifics, and I think that is the case here. In my mind, Google is clearly invading people’s privacy, has been for some time, and shows no intention of stopping. This is hardly the first complaint against Google streetview. A decision for or against the couple will set a local legal prescedent that will surely be considered in other jurisdictions as well. Again, to scoff at this case due to what you may consider small sums of money misses the point entirely.

    This story isn’t about how much someone paid for their home or how much they are suing for. I salute the “little guys” for standing up against the corporate giant, and for bearing the ridicule of those sheep who seem so eager for their own slaughter. When the giants right to do whatever the hell they like is signed into law, we will all regret how we ridiculed the little guy, and laughed as the corporation quietly slipped their hands into our back pocket and took away our rights.

94. Jimmy James
    

    April 7th, 2008 at 8:04 am

    I guarantee they are hiding weapons or some other contraband in those detached structures. Also, it’s a picture of your house. Get over it.

95. Ken K.
    

    April 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am

    I find it funny some people are demonstrating why the Boring’s are sueing.
    People keep calling the place a dump, presumably based off the photos. (Probably about as likely just because it’s easier to make fun of things than think about the point.)

    Say they put their house up for sale… it doesn’t matter whether they tailor their yard, fix up whatever… make it all look fantastic and such. People can look it up on google streetview and see ‘the dump’ photos. Anyone who actually goes out there might see a much better (or possibly much worse) place… but whose gonna bother after seeing pictures of ‘the dump’?

    If they requested google to take the photos down, and and if google didn’t, I can see grounds for the suit.

    I’m guessing they edited the original story to take out the ‘price of a parking space’ part, they should just remove the whole section on what they paid. As others have pointed out it’s immaterial, trivializing, and demonstrates that the author is a bit out of touch.

    Aside- am I the only one who finds the concept of people taking pictures of my house to post online a tad creepy? I mean it sounds cool to be able to check anything out… but it just feels icky… like that odd neighbor down the street just suddenly up and deciding to take pictures of your house… that’d be cool with you?