[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Google Sued by Frenchman Caught on Street View in Embarrasing Pose here

[serile]

Shouldn't the guy be suing himself? He's the one who acted stupidly.

[korseypig]

Want easy money?
Get the information when Google Street View cars is scheduled to photographed your place and when that time comes go outside and pee. If you see your self on Google Map peeing hire an attorney and sue Google.

[DavidMadden]

There is a need for a greater level of privacy. While I love everything Google, things have gone a bit far. There are laws about posting pictures of people without their permission. Especially if they are the sole subject or main character in the photo.

Still funny about shot pissing, though. I would have let it all hang out and been proud.

[AnthonyColl]

When you're out in public, you've given up your right to privacy. If I make a fool of myself outside, I don't get to cry privacy about the people that witness and catalog my foolishness because there's nothing private about being outside, viewable from the street.

He won't win the case because anyone is allowed to take pictures of anyone else in public, and since these pictures are all from public streets they are necessarily public. People should be grateful that Google goes out of their way to blur faces to hide people's identities as they've already gone above and beyond in terms of 'privacy'.

[Patruns]

J'accuse! I have a suggestion cheese eating surrender monkey.... use the bathroom instead!

[blackcross]

AnthonyColl, on 02 March 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

He won't win the case because anyone is allowed to take pictures of anyone else in public, and since these pictures are all from public streets they are necessarily public.

North American laws. What are the laws on privacy in France? THAT is the deciding factor.

[QUADICON]

Really? First off you shouldnt have been at the tree taking a whiz.

Second, how did Google not see this picture and already remove it? And Google didn't invade his privacy. If he was trying to keep it private, he would have been in a restroom like he was suppose to be.

If you are outside, that means you are in a public place. Theer was no provavbcy to invade, you stupid moron.

[QUADICON]

blackcross, on 02 March 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

AnthonyColl, on 02 March 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

He won't win the case because anyone is allowed to take pictures of anyone else in public, and since these pictures are all from public streets they are necessarily public.

North American laws. What are the laws on privacy in France? THAT is the deciding factor.

It doesn't matter. Most countries have similar laws as to what is considered indecency. Taking a whiz in public is illegal in every country that isn't in ther midle of the Jungle or some arrant desert.

[QUADICON]

blackcross, on 02 March 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

AnthonyColl, on 02 March 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

He won't win the case because anyone is allowed to take pictures of anyone else in public, and since these pictures are all from public streets they are necessarily public.

North American laws. What are the laws on privacy in France? THAT is the deciding factor.

A tree is not a restroom or toilet. If he was in the forest where there was no toilet, but was more private, he is still in a public place. Public is anywhere that is OPEN. Thus a street isn't where he should be taking a whizzzz.

Why do you think laws would be any different? If you want to know, go to France and take a whizz on a public street in from of the police and see what happens to yiu. Then you will know first hand the answer to your question.

In the old days in the US, doing such was simply indecent exposure. Now in some states landing 3 of such will land you a felony and will make you a sex offender.

You shouldn't be doing such on a public street. He is suppose to know better. But see the idiot is acting no better than a dog. He should be in jail not in a court suing.

[Twindle]

I think this is retarded. doing anything outside in plane view of the road is not private. be happy street view does this. it just doesnt make sense why people are crying privacy and having everything blurred anyone can go their and see it themselves. l personally dont care if im shot in public or not why would you need to blur my license plate or my face or my home (Germany) its because people are retarded

[ukdirector]

Goggle taking the piss out of a French man.

Anyone who does that where the general public can see is an pervert anyway.

[Dennis810o]

Well, no none knew about this until he opened his zipper and mouth!

[JTF243]

Seems to me a load of 00 buckshot ought to take care of that camera.

[kabrophy]

QUADICON, on 02 March 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

blackcross, on 02 March 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

AnthonyColl, on 02 March 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

He won't win the case because anyone is allowed to take pictures of anyone else in public, and since these pictures are all from public streets they are necessarily public.

North American laws. What are the laws on privacy in France? THAT is the deciding factor.

It doesn't matter. Most countries have similar laws as to what is considered indecency. Taking a whiz in public is illegal in every country that isn't in ther midle of the Jungle or some arrant desert.

Public urination is a public offense (violation of statute, etc.), and the law (at least in the United States) does not permit anyone to take the picture of anyone else and publicly display the picture without getting the explicit permission of the person in the photo. Exceptions are made in situations where the individual is not clearly identifiable and where the individual is a "person of great public interest" (prior to the image being taken) such as a celebrity actor, politician, etc., and at sporting events (described below).

In this situation, with the person being in his own yard, which is clearly identifiable by the property address that the program assigns to the picture, it is arguable that the address, picture of the house/property, person's body shape, etc. are reasonably sufficient to clearly identify the person in the photograph, even though Google went through the over-simplified effort to blur the person's face.

There is a reason why there are paid and unpaid extras used for movies. There is a reason why buying a ticket at a sporting event has an implied consent to allow your image to be displayed on television or any other media ... and you can't demand or sue to be paid for your appearance. Most people seem to be happy enough with that as their claim to the "15 minutes of fame."

In the end, though (no pun intended), the public indecency violation precedes the violation of taking the picture, and creates complications in a court of law. Although it may be more difficult to win on the grounds of being exposed nude on the Internet without permission because of the whole time-sequence order the judge will consider. If the first violation wouldn't have been committed, could the second violation have been committed? If not, then the second violation is very difficult to warrant the court awarding damages - extenuating circumstances must first be demonstrated.

If, however, the man in the photo could reasonably demonstrate that he had just cause - meaning that he didn't have an alternative option, such as he's a diabetic and had a "bathroom emergency" (he really had to go), another family member had just been in the bathroom, flushed the toilet and it was rapidly overflowing, the back door was being obstructed by workers completing a home renovation project, ... and ... um ... his wife had all of his clothes in the laundry and there wasn't a towel, blanket, etc. between his emergent bladder situation and the front door. (Yeah, that one'd be very difficult to demonstrate in a court of law ... but stranger collections of unfortunate events have happened. And yes, Ocham's razor. The simplest answer is most likely the correct one.) But the point is that we, the public, don't know the actual truth. Innocent until proven guilty ... do not judge, lest ye be judged, yourself ... no sin and casting the first stone ... and all that.

But that's USA law.

It would serve as a precedent to support anyone out there who might fall into a similar, accidental situation.

This post has been edited by kabrophy: 02 March 2012 - 09:52 PM

[thewazak]

DavidMadden, on 02 March 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

..... While I love everything Google,

That is why Google can please themselves: too many folks still foolishly believing Google is "the good guy".

Wake up!

[bigbear639]

kabrophy, on 02 March 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

QUADICON, on 02 March 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

blackcross, on 02 March 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

AnthonyColl, on 02 March 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

He won't win the case because anyone is allowed to take pictures of anyone else in public, and since these pictures are all from public streets they are necessarily public.

North American laws. What are the laws on privacy in France? THAT is the deciding factor.

It doesn't matter. Most countries have similar laws as to what is considered indecency. Taking a whiz in public is illegal in every country that isn't in ther midle of the Jungle or some arrant desert.

Public urination is a public offense (violation of statute, etc.), and the law (at least in the United States) does not permit anyone to take the picture of anyone else and publicly display the picture without getting the explicit permission of the person in the photo. Exceptions are made in situations where the individual is not clearly identifiable and where the individual is a "person of great public interest" (prior to the image being taken) such as a celebrity actor, politician, etc., and at sporting events (described below).

In this situation, with the person being in his own yard, which is clearly identifiable by the property address that the program assigns to the picture, it is arguable that the address, picture of the house/property, person's body shape, etc. are reasonably sufficient to clearly identify the person in the photograph, even though Google went through the over-simplified effort to blur the person's face.
I am a diabetic and have never had a bathroom emergency. Your suppositions are idiotic. If someone else was in the Bathroom did he not have a container he could urinate in? Even another sink could be used. It is nothing to clean it up. Even if he had to pee, why not turn away from the Streets toward a wall. There is a Gas Station Accross from my home and people use the corner of the car wash or indisde as a toilet. My Cameras view it all. The owner could care less and the Prostitutes and Drug abusers love using the car wash as the doors are often left open all night in violation of the Law. BTW in other parts of the city popular for their restaurants, 3 such offenses will land you on a felony charge and sex offender list
There is a reason why there are paid and unpaid extras used for movies. There is a reason why buying a ticket at a sporting event has an implied consent to allow your image to be displayed on television or any other media ... and you can't demand or sue to be paid for your appearance. Most people seem to be happy enough with that as their claim to the "15 minutes of fame."

In the end, though (no pun intended), the public indecency violation precedes the violation of taking the picture, and creates complications in a court of law. Although it may be more difficult to win on the grounds of being exposed nude on the Internet without permission because of the whole time-sequence order the judge will consider. If the first violation wouldn't have been committed, could the second violation have been committed? If not, then the second violation is very difficult to warrant the court awarding damages - extenuating circumstances must first be demonstrated.

If, however, the man in the photo could reasonably demonstrate that he had just cause - meaning that he didn't have an alternative option, such as he's a diabetic and had a "bathroom emergency" (he really had to go), another family member had just been in the bathroom, flushed the toilet and it was rapidly overflowing, the back door was being obstructed by workers completing a home renovation project, ... and ... um ... his wife had all of his clothes in the laundry and there wasn't a towel, blanket, etc. between his emergent bladder situation and the front door. (Yeah, that one'd be very difficult to demonstrate in a court of law ... but stranger collections of unfortunate events have happened. And yes, Ocham's razor. The simplest answer is most likely the correct one.) But the point is that we, the public, don't know the actual truth. Innocent until proven guilty ... do not judge, lest ye be judged, yourself ... no sin and casting the first stone ... and all that.

But that's USA law.

It would serve as a precedent to support anyone out there who might fall into a similar, accidental situation.

[Caffeaddict]

Google street view is very useful but more privacy protection is needed. Google should blur not only the face but at least the upper half body of anyone close to the camera.

[MartynHughes]

douchebag is obviously a slob peeing in his own yard

[JimStretch]

i'm only surprised (but not really) how many write "suppose to" instead of the correct "supposed to".