I Spy a Luddite: Why the Lawsuit over Google Street View is Absurd

ITIF

The Information

Technology

& Innovation

Foundation

May 2008 will mark the one year anni-

versary of the launch of Google’s “Street

View,” one of the latest features in the

Google Maps lineup. Google Maps has

evolved from a basic online map service

into a feature-rich product with driving

directions, satellite imagery, terrain over-

lays and real-time trafﬁ c ﬂ ows. Contrib-

uting to its success is an open application

programming interface (API), which al-

lows developers to create their own cus-

tom map “mash-ups.” For example, USA

Today has used the API to map all of the

home foreclosures in Denver since 2006,

while websites such as WikiCrimes pro-

vide mash-ups of user-submitted crime

reports, and Virginia Tech’s eCorridors

application constructs maps of broadband

coverage and speeds from user-submitted

data.

The latest feature – Street View – com-

bines thousands of street-level photo-

graphs taken by Google to create a realis-

tic, 360-degree panoramic view of various

cities. Online users can navigate through

the streets to take a virtual walk through

the city. Using Street View, home buy-

ers can check out a neighborhood, virtual

tourists can explore where to visit, and

residents can locate unfamiliar places.

Google is not the ﬁ rst company to launch

this type of feature – Amazon.com show-

cased a similar concept in their A9.com

BlockView maps in 2005.

While most users enjoy these features, a

small but vocal group of opponents has

emerged, claiming that Google Street

View represents a threat to their privacy.

When Google ﬁ rst rolled out Street View,

the New York Times published an ar-

ticle about the new program featuring a

woman in Oakland, California who criti-

cized it because it showed a photo of her

cat sitting in her living room window.

Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Fron-

tier Foundation (EFF) condemned Street

View from the start arguing, “There is a

certain ‘ick’ factor here.”

In the United

Kingdom, Simon Davies, director of Pri-

vacy International argues, “This is just

the latest in a litany of privacy invasions

by Google, which they justify by claiming

openness as an excuse.”

The latest manifestation of this opposi-

tion is a lawsuit ﬁ led by a couple who live

outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They

claim that the photograph of their home

in Street View violates their privacy and

have sued Google for $25,000 in damag-

es.

Based on legal precedent, it seems un-

likely that the plaintiffs will be successful

unless they can prove that Google tres-

passed on private property to take the

photograph in question. Google acquires

the images by driving around cities on

public streets in vehicles mounted with

digital cameras and GPS devices. The

cameras photograph no more than what

the average person would see looking out

of a car window.

Many may be quick to dismiss this lawsuit

as just a gloriﬁ ed version of the infantile

complaint “Mom, he’s looking at me!” or

perhaps just a greedy attempt to shake-

down Google for a quick payoff. But if

the plaintiffs did win, the ruling would

call into question the issue of when a pho-

tographer needs to obtain consent to take

BY DANIEL CASTRO

APRIL 25, 2008

I Spy a Luddite:

Why the Lawsuit over

Google Street View is Absurd

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION

webmemo

The Information Technology

and Innovation Foundation

(ITIF) is a nonproﬁ t, non-

partisan public policy

think tank committed

to articulating and advanc-

ing a pro-productivity,

pro-innovation and pro-

technology public policy

agenda internationally,

in Washington and in

the states.

For more information,

contact ITIF at

202-449-1351 or at

[email protected], or visit

www.innovationpolicy.org.

PAGE 2THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION

Web Memo

a picture. Could a home seller no longer post pictures

of their home on the Internet if the image included

part of their neighbor’s property? Could tourists no

longer post pictures of their vacation when there are

private residences in the background? Would webcams

taking images that include public views be banned?

Given the pervasiveness of cameras in public spaces,

from security cameras to cell phone cameras, people

should expect that their activities in public may be

recorded and that these recording may ﬁ nd their way

online. When Kodak released the original Brownie

“snapshot” camera, privacy advocates at the time

feared the technology and claimed that they would

no longer have any privacy when they walked down

the street. However, the consequences have not been

nearly so dire. Technological innovations do not mean

that we abandon the rule of law—that is why we have

laws against stalking and harassment.

Privacy is important, but it must be balanced against

other values. While many technologies can be misused,

they should not be banned simply because they come

with some risk. There is a clear difference between

benign tools like Google Street View and intentionally

malicious websites. For example online destinations

such as Gawker Stalker, which reports celebrity rumors

and sightings, or Juicy Campus which encourages gos-

sip, have little redeeming value.

Technology opponents often overstate privacy con-

cerns as a rationale for opposing certain innovations:

we have seen this in everything from RFID

to bio-

metrics

to electronic health records.

But what is the

real risk with Street View? In the case of the Penn-

sylvania lawsuit, there appears to be no risk. First,

StreetView lets users report inappropriate content that

they feel violates their privacy or poses a security con-

cern. Second, and wait for the irony, the Pennsylvania

couple that sued Google already has a photograph of

their property publicly available on the Internet, cour-

tesy of the Alleghany County Ofﬁ ce of Property As-

sessments.

But neither of these facts matters much to those who

are ideologically opposed to this technology. Over

time most of these privacy risks will be proven un-

founded but hardcore privacy zealots will still irratio-

nally denounce these innovations because of their al-

leged “ick factor.”

Fortunately for the rest of us, we can avoid these pri-

vacy fanatics by using websites like RottenNeighbor.

com, a clever mash-up of Google Maps that allows

residents to identify troublesome neighbors for the

beneﬁ t of potential home buyers.

Daniel Castro is a Senior Analyst with the Information

Technolog y and Innovation Foundation.

Endnotes

1. See, for example, “Denver foreclosures: One hard hit neighborhood at a glance,” USA Today <www.usatoday.com/news/

graphics/foreclosure_map/foreclose.htm>, “WikiCrimes” <www.wikicrimes.org>, and “eCorridtors” <www.ecorridors.vt.edu/

maps/broadbandmap.php>.

2. “Google Zooms In Too Close for Some,” The New York Times, 1 Jun. 2007: <www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/

technology/01private.html?ex=1338436800&en=dcf03c92d90d9c0c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink>.

3. “Alarm At Google’s ‘Street View’,” CBS News, 1 Jun. 2007: <www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/01/tech/main2877262.

shtml>.

4. “All-seeing Google Street View prompts privacy fears,” Times Online, 1 Jun. 2007: <technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

tech_and_web/article1870995.ece>.

5. “Boring Couple Sues Google Over Street View,” The Recorder, 7 Apr. 2008. From Law.com: <www.law.com/jsp/article.

jsp?id=1207305794776>.

6. Robert D. Atkinson, “RFID: There’s Nothing To Fear Except Fear Itself,” 16th Annual Computer, Freedom and Privacy

Conference (Washington, DC: May 4, 2006) <www.itif.org/index.php?id=65>.

7. Robert D. Atkinson, “Confronting Biometric Detractors,” 2006 Biometric Consortium Conference (Baltimore, MD: September

21, 2006) <www.itif.org/index.php?id=98>.

8. Daniel Castro, “Improving Health Care: Why a Dose of IT May Be Just What the Doctor Ordered,” (Washington, DC: ITIF,

2007) <www.itif.org/index.php?id=88>.

9. For photograph, see at Alleghany County, Ofﬁ ce of Property Assessments, <www.county.allegheny.pa.us/opa/>.