Woman Sues Google Over Street View Shots of Her Underwear 417
Kittenman writes "The Telegraph (and several US locals) are covering a story about a Japanese woman who had her underwear on the line while the Google car went past. She is now suing Google: 'I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime,' the woman told a district court. 'It caused me to lose my job and I had to change my residence.'"
Ugh, this again? (Score:3, Informative)
I understand not wanting pictures of your underwear online, but she didn't seem to have a problem hanging it in her front yard.
In my eyes, any legitimacy she had was lost when she sued first instead of just asking to have it blurred or removed.
Re:Ugh, this again? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Common sense says... (Score:5, Informative)
Common sense is different in different cultures.
In some places, common sense says you don't eat corn - it's for the animals stupid! How dare you serve it to me.
In Japan, where streets are small and houses close, people are very used to not looking and not seeing things plainly visible from the street. It would be really rude to stare, and it isn't done.
So yes, she does have a reasonable expectation of a kind of privacy that is expected in Japan, and which was violated by Google.
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Informative)
Not always; consider the red light district in Amsterdam. Photographs are strictly prohibited and you'd find yourself in a good deal of trouble.
More Details. NOT a regular Streetview Photo... (Score:5, Informative)
Someone took a picture of her underwear and posted it on Google Streetview...
Here's the original article. [mainichi.jp]
From the original article in the Mainichi Shinbun, "It seems that someone posted the picture of her underwear on the internet.[...] She said, "If it had been an exterior view of the apartment that's understandable, but that a photo of my underwear drying on the veranda should appear is strange no matter how you look at it."
Again, this isn't just a case of something weird showing up on Streetview, according to the woman in question. Her paranoia is a little more understandable considering that she claims someone took a picture of her underwear and went to the trouble of posting it where she would likely find it. Being concerned about harassment or stalking isn't completely unreasonable.
Some other details that were left out of the English article include that the woman in question is from Fukuoka City in Fukuoka, that she's in her twenties, that she was fired from the hospital were she was working, that she lived alone at the time of the incident, that she found the photo this Spring, that she filed suit in November in Fukuoka District Court and that opening arguments were heard on December 15th. As of December 15th, Google was hurrying to verify the facts of the case.
There was a 2channel thread about the story that referred to it as "MyPantyView," but unfortunately Slashdot's Japanese counterparts had no comment on the matter.
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Informative)
Most countries follow the "eggshell skull" rule. This rule states that a plaintiff in a tort is liable for the harm as it happened, not as they intended. The titular example is the person who shoves a fellow bar patron up against a wall, which due to his thin or "egghshell" skull (A medical condition) kills him. He is civilly responsible for that death, even though a minor shove up against a wall should not be expected to cause any lasting harm, let alone death. Because he was wrong to do it, so he must take responsibility for absolutely anything that happens because of that wrong doing. Another example would be throwing a PBJ sandwich at somebody, and they end up being allergic to peanuts. You didn't know, you thought it would just splat on their face and teach them a lesson, not potentially kill them. However, it was not the victims fault for not alerting you in advance.
So, in this case, Google CAN be held responsible for the aggravation of this woman's mental condition. But only if they are first found to have wrongfully the picture in the first place. The eggshell skull rule simply says that IF you commit a tort, you are responsible for all harm that results, regardless of how exceptional that harm end up being due to circumstances unknown to you at the time. However, without the tort, there is no case. So, if I say to a woman with a mental illness "Good day, ma'am" and this triggers some sort of episode, I am not legally responsible, because a friendly greeting is not a tort. (In most jurisdictions I hope)