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.'"
Common sense says... (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
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.
If the fact that it’s airing up there visible for the world to see doesn’t mean that anybody should be staring at it, neither does the fact that it’s visible on Google Street View.
Re: (Score:3)
it wasn't visible to "the world to see", it was visible to neighbours and people walking by
And what was preventing anyone in the world from walking/driving by and seeing it?
Physical access. Most people in the U.S., for example, will never have the opportunity to walk by and see it. But, they certainly can view it on the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people in the U.S., for example, will never have the opportunity to walk by and see it.
They could if they wanted to, which is the whole point.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that in general there's a huge language hurdle and travel time/cost to do so.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That makes no fucking sense. None whatsoever.
Agreed. Looks like opportunism to me.
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)
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Japan is where there are huge problems with men groping teenage girls on the train, to the point where there are "women only" cars now. And you're telling us that nobody in Japan would dare look at this woman's panties drying on a line?
That's what laundry covers are for (Score:3)
In Japan you can buy even in 100 yen stores a very neat special covers for your laundry that you put over the hangers and voilá, women and girls can put they lingerie to dry in a balcony without worry about the prying eyes of the male neighbors. If this lady was truly worried about it she could have bought her laundry covers a long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Common sense says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Common sense says taking a picture from a publically accessable location is fair game. After that the rest of your argument falls apart.
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.
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a corner case. Many localities have differing regulations concerning photography. You think all laws are sensible? FFS, there are places where there are still laws on the books prohibiting you from putting squirrels in your pants for the purposes of betting. If you think the law is about "common sense" you may be in for a rude shock when you travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still missing it. "Oh wait" could mean anything.
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Interesting)
we'll talk again next time you get playful with your significant other in a secluded, but public, spot. or in your living room without the drapes drawn.
Re:Common sense says... (Score:5, Funny)
This is Slashdot, remember?
What exactly do you think will be the problem if a slashdotter will get playful with his computer?
Re: (Score:3)
In either case I have consented to be photographed, videotaped, or whatever, because I own blinds and I have control over where I have sex.
I do think that it's a bit rude that only people with homes are entitled to privacy. There's all kinds of problems with requiring that things happen in the home. It's illegal for you to have sex in public if someone might see you, most places.
Re: (Score:3)
And come to think of it, is any establishment required by law to give you a place to pee?
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Funny)
I hate it when people try to talk to me while I'm fucking my girlfriend. If you can see that I'm busy STFU and wait until I'm finished asshole!
Seriously people, what's an extra ten seconds to you anyway?
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like "visible from publicly accessible locations to the naked eye, with no attempt made to shield said location from the public view"? That seems like a perfectly fair mark to me -- if you don't want someone to look at or photograph something in your yard in clear view, then put up a fence (or draw your blinds/curtains, or what have you) so it's no longer in clear view?
Re:Common sense says... (Score:4, Interesting)
You *do* close the blinds before having sex, don't you?
But the real issue is that people are too hung up over this in the U.S. If such an incident happened to most normal people in the rest of the world, they would simply take better precautions and move on with their life. Going into a panic over it to the point where you get paranoid and dysfunctional is the wrong way to handle the problem. Also, there would be less of an issue with stalkers and so on if the U.S. wasn't so anally obsessed with maintaining a pseudo-1950s ideal of purity about the human body. I mean, as it was pointed out a couple of days ago here, you can show someone's head being exploded in a PG movie but you show a little too much skin and you're looking at a R rating.
ie - most of the rest of the industrialized world doesn't generally have to worry as much about such issues because sex and the body in media is far more accessible. So there's less of a psychological issue amongst the society because they can easily and simply get their porn or whatever as they need to. You'll note that the most sexually repressed societies are also amongst the most violent, especially in terms of assaults and rape.
Of course, this is barely being touched upon in modern Psychology. The idea that high incidents of rape and physical assault are a result of societal issues and a dysfunctional environment between the sexes and people's views of themselves and their bodies.
Some interesting reading:
http://www.ipce.info/library_2/pdf/prescott_en.pdf [ipce.info] (perhaps the first study of its kind, though largely ignored in the U.S. until recently)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01068.x/abstract [wiley.com] - This is extremely recent and a (long overdue) logical progression of the hypothesis, IMO.
The book "An Interview with The Devil" also has a coupe of great passages in it about this. Though it's mostly tongue-in-cheek humor, there is a valid point to be made about how people who are less able to show affection and obtain closeness with others end up being more violent. You'll note that the U.S. is even worse off than ever before and we also at the same time can't even hug each other or touch each other in public/school/work/etc without fear of being charged with a crime.
It would be interesting to do a study on sexual and physical repression in terms of the collapse of great empires throughout history. I suspect that the results might be quite interesting.
Re:Common sense says... (Score:5, Funny)
Seeing those undies hanging there brings a whole new meaning to the word "on-line".
Re: (Score:2)
you mean like newspapers who add pictures of whatever they report on to their articles? (their revenue is also advert driven, the pictures are in the same realm as google streetview)
i agree with grandparent, it's just an issue because it's new and unfamiliar...
Expectation of Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Expectation of Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems hard to imagine that the woman expected her delicates to stay completely private when she hung them up for the entire world to see.
This is the part that really stands out. What makes you think she hung them up "for the entire world to see"? I mean, what we have today is kind of a whole new level in the public vs. private continuum. There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.
There is a shift that needs to happen in how we view things. Obviously, the moment you step out of a private residence, you can no longer expect privacy. But perhaps there is a reasonable expectation of something that falls somewhere between "private" and "on the Internet".
Re:Expectation of Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
How would that even work? No. I think trying to somehow distinguish between regular public and internet public is kind of dumb. Here's a good rule of thumb. Live your public life as though everything you do will end up on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's going to make for a very dull life. I don't want to be at any parties you're hosting on that basis!
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
this point of view seems to be in vogue on slashdot recently, as a backlash against privacy nuts, but no-one ever explains what they mean by public, so the argument falls flat. Is a conversation between two people at a cafe private? What about a husband and wife arguing in the cafe? Common decency would mean that most of us would take pains to ignore that argument, despite it being in public, because it would be considered an intrusion to appear to be listening. And yet the ridiculous /. defi
Re: (Score:2)
And that does even take into account time--you can hang something out for 1 hour to dry, on an early morning, and it'll be online until you request that Google take it down and they process the request, which might take a few days.
FTFY. Hey, if you risk putting it up for 1 hour, you risk it being on the internet for a few days. Live with it, or don’t put it up in the first place.
Re:Expectation of Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.
No, it isn't. "On the Internet" is where you should assume everything "public" will end up. Or put another way, you should always assune the whole world is watching anything you do in public. This was a good idea before the Internet, and it's a better idea now.
Re:Expectation of Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.
Not for long. Get used to it... I don’t see the trend changing.
Re:Expectation of Privacy (Score:5, Funny)
Not really. If something is in public view, it could simply be photographed and published anywhere - without permission. That's the nature of "in public view". There's nothing inherently different about it being "on the internet" in these cases.
The lesson is, to co-opt a phrase, that people shouldn't air their clean laundry in public. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
If she hangs her washing outside, people will see it. The people who live near her have probably seen her laundry already, and nobody is going to go out of their way to visit her just because they saw some underwear on a washing line. It isn't even sexy underwear. Why should a rapist choose her over any of the other millions of women in Japan? It makes no sense.
It makes me think she must be mentally ill, though it could just be a cultural thing. If she's been a victim of sex crimes in the past, however, her
Re: (Score:2)
It makes me think she must be mentally ill
Did the fact that she's obsessive/compulsive tip you off?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm interested now, I'm actually going to RTFA
Did the fact that he had not yet RTFA escape you?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, TFA confirms she is mentally ill:
The suit claims her existing obsessive-compulsive disorder was worsened by the anxiety brought on by the photo, as she feared that everything she was doing throughout the day was being secretly recorded.
It's a real shame as OCD can be crippling, but I don't think she has any actual grounds to sue Google here.
Re: (Score:3)
There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.
No. No it is not. This is the kind of thinking that our lawmakers are using "it is different if it involves a computer!" They are wrong, and so are you.
Private is private, and public is public.
That is not to say that there are not cultural differences... in small densely populated regions (like Japan) people have learned to ignore many "private" things that are going on right in front of them, because there is not enough space for it to be done in true privacy. But that is a cultural issue, and not a le
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. No it is not. This is the kind of thinking that our lawmakers are using "it is different if it involves a computer!" They are wrong, and so are you.
I think we need a patent on that.
Public areas...on the internet!!
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things are effectively self-governing until technology comes along which removes burdens to doing those things. Take police tailing people--affixing a GPS or using traffic cameras to follow the person means that tailing someone is almost free. Different courts have disagreed on whether GPS-tailing is a rights violation (if they don't break into your car to do it.) Before these technologies, there wasn't much question about the legality of police tracking your movements. Now that it's trivial to
Re: (Score:2)
"Private is private, and public is public."
Not true. Privacy is about circles of trust and access. It's not boolean. That's why it's complex.
I have privacy with my wife. privacy with my lawyer, privacy with my doctor. Each one is a different circle and different levels by their nature.
Re: (Score:2)
A fair point on the nature of privacy.
I think public still remains pretty unilateral though.
this time, it IS different: (Score:2)
This is the 21st century , now we have hunter-killer blimps cruising around, taking pictures every five feet and recording everything for posterity. And to make matters worse, it all gets put into cyberspace where everbody with access to a computer will be looking at it and compulsively stroking one out like some sort of bloodshot-eyed gibbon in a Skinner
Re: (Score:2)
No. No it is not. This is the kind of thinking that our lawmakers are using "it is different if it involves a computer!" They are wrong, and so are you.
I expected a response similar to this. And, to be clear, I am not in any way advocating legislation here. Also, the fact that "it involves a computer" is irrelevant. What matters here is the fact that "public, but not on the Internet" means that a handful of people can and will see it, while "on the public Internet" means that potentially millions of people can and will see it.
I'm talking entirely about culture here. I don't think that we should accept the idea that anything not securely locked up in a secr
Re: (Score:2)
There are already varying degrees of "public," for example a kid's artwork hanging on the wall in the school hallway is only semi-public, because access to the school is semi-controlled. But if something can be seen from the sidewalk, literally anyone in the entire world could walk by at any time and look at it, same as if it's on the Internet. I don't think your distinction between "public" and "on the Internet" makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the part that really stands out. What makes you think she hung them up "for the entire world to see"? I mean, what we have today is kind of a whole new level in the public vs. private continuum. There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.
This is exceptionally insightful. It's the same sort of problem with putting "public records" online. That court document which has a person's SSN on it is a public record, but when you scan it into a database, and make it searchable online, that takes it to a whole new level, and becomes very dangerous. When I tell a new acquaintance my phone number in a public space, I expect that he will enter it into his cell phone, or write it down, and maybe a couple people will overhear it. I don't expect it to t
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn’t “become” dangerous. It just becomes more easily available.
It’s just the same old argument.
Something is patentable? Okay. New patent doing the same thing but “with a computer”? No, not patentable. Not innovative. Not new. Just an extension of what already existed: making it easier and available to more people.
Something is a crime? Okay. New crime for the same thing but “with a computer”? No, not a new crime. Just the existing crime, done with a compu
Re: (Score:2)
Streisand Effect (Score:5, Funny)
Congragulations, miss. The entire readership of /. will now see your underwear.
Well done.
Re: (Score:3)
So? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand the "this" meme but if ever there was a time to use it, I think "this" is it.
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
It was never really meant as a meme but rather a quick way to convey your concurrence to a statement.
Like the whole
tl;dr = Too Long Didn't Read
IANAL = I am not a Lawyer
LoL = Laugh out Loud
This = Indubitably my good sir! Your clever insight and concise conveyance of the subject matter at hand was quite enjoyable and I agree with your statement in every facet that one might be agreeable.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
(and unfortunately required additional text to get around the lameness filter)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have to add a bunch of text to get around the lameness filter, maybe you should reconsider posting your lame post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was never really meant as a meme but rather a quick way to convey your concurrence to a statement.
Gotta be honest here: "It's an AOL-style 'me too!' for a new generation" doesn't quite endear me to it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Is.
Funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. If that half dead hooker in Spain passed out on the sidewalk doesn't care, why should she?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you consider Google to be the underpants gnomes it's obvious that she baited them to try and get a cut into their profit.
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: (Score:2)
A patio or balcony still within view of the street. The underlying point is the Google Maps van didn't have to hop a fence and avoid Chopper to get pics of her underthings.
Mental Illness (Score:5, Insightful)
'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.'
Even ignoring the fact that the woman's underwear was apparently visible from the street in the first place and it never bothered her. This reeks of unhealthy paranoia to me, is Google really responsible for one woman's mental issues? Granted, this thinking is exactly what the modern media creates, the idea that the world is filled with kidnappers, rapists, and violence. It's ironic that there are fewer murders than ever in US history, the kidnapping rate is lower than it was in 1940, and the overall violent crime rate sets new record lows every year (maybe not since the recession, but I haven't heard).
Re: (Score:2)
The suit claims her existing obsessive-compulsive disorder was worsened by the anxiety brought on by the photo, as she feared that everything she was doing throughout the day was being secretly recorded.
This.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
See here: http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1919386&cid=34630114 [slashdot.org]
This.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It strikes me as odd that a woman afraid if being the target of a sex crime would hang her underwear outside in the first place. It seems like her own action is the root cause rather than Google.
Plus, I can't imagine someone stalking the house of someone who they've never seen because underwear was hung outside. Now if the image had her with her underwear, it could be more serious (Unless she's hideous)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not necessarily true. The cameras on a Google van are much higher than the average person. What is visible from the cam truck is much more than what is visible from standing in the street or on the sidewalk.
Other commenters are wrong (Score:5, Funny)
I know many people are saying that she should not have left them out to dry in public view. She made her mistake long before that.
She is in Japan. She shouldn't have washed them in the first place; instead she could have sold them for a nice profit.
"Target of a sex crime", seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
More like overwhelmed with anxiety (Score:5, Insightful)
... that she might miss out on a chance to sue a big company for a whole lot of money she doesn't deserve, by feigning distress. I'm sure nobody involved thinks it's anything other than BS, but they're probably hoping Google will settle.
Re: (Score:2)
I have little doubt that she had the anxiety
Why are you so sure, you think nobody ever lied for money?
she was asking for it (Score:2)
Apparently she's all right with all the local boys eyeballing her dainties.
But draws the line at some gaijin interweb pervert getting cheap thrills at her expense.
Hey, this is Japan , we're talking about. Fukuoka, even.
Ha! (Score:4, Funny)
That'll teach her to air her dirty laundry in public!
(N.B. This joke would actually be funny if the laundry actually was dirty)
Time to play Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
This woman is making at least one claim that can be tested - that she lost her job due to this. It would be rather simple to find out if this was the case - ask her ex-boss if he fired her over them, find out if she was shunned by coworkers over the images, etc. Most cases of people suing over trivialities involve less testable claims. As such, either she's not good at trolling the legal system, or she's got more of a case than we've assumed. After all, Japan is a much different culture than America or Europe - something like this could actually be a big deal over there. I honestly don't know. So, I'm going to wait for more info before making any sort of final judgement.
Um... (Score:2)
'It caused me to lose my job and I had to change my residence.' "
Because you know the details on Google Street View are just SO good that we could even tell you had underwear on the line. Shoot, TFA says that she lived in an apartment building. I mean, was there a pixilated blur in the background or something? And if she REALLY had a problem with this, all she had to do was file a complaint with Google. TFA actually says that Google had already replaced the image by the time she filed the lawsuit.
I'm missing the chain of causality here... (Score:2)
www.upskirt.com (Score:2)
This is rediculous. Are all of the ladies who recognize themselves on upskirt.com going to sue them as well? Where do you draw the line?
Sorry, my stance is this: If it's publicly viewable it's fair game. That's why I wear pants and dry my laundry in a clothes dryer.
Might want to actually read before commenting. (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
And ... damn, I’ve already posted in this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch. Slashdot should have posted the photo along with its credit [ompldr.org]. Shame on you, Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
If memory serves, the Google van had to traverse a private road to get those shots, making it obvious they strayed off public roads, so there's more to the $1 case than "simply spilling hot coffee in your lap."
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it looks like in Japan they have targeted specific areas of interest with Street View. For instance, off the path of the normal street view area, there area single pictures of things like shrines, etc. I don't see one in Fukuoka (what a great name for this story), so perhaps they removed it. If they directly took a single shot of her underwear and that was the only picture in that area, I'd say that crosses the line into public humiliation.
Re: (Score:3)
Hypothetical situation: Amateur photographer sees her underthings on the line, sees the framing, thinks it makes a good shot. Posts it online, wins some flickr award, gets lots of attention (remember, hypothetical!). The rest plays out as normal.
Does she deserve more, less or the same amount of sympathy?
Re: (Score:3)
the whole rest of the world, over whom you have no influence, social or direct.
And that's just it: you have no influence, nor they over you. In a sense, your underwear is more private on Google Street View than it is on the street. The people who see the underwear on the street are your friends and neighbors. You'll interact with them after they've seen your underwear.
The imagined voyeurs are on Google Street View might in fact be real people, but you don't know them and will never meet them. In fact, the odds are that they don't even exist; the world is a very, very big place and
Re: (Score:3)
"But there is a difference between the attention of your neighbors, with whom you have some kind of dynamic relationship, and the whole rest of the world, over whom you have no influence, social or direct."
Most sex crimes are commited by people who know the victim.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it would have to be Japanese women. And for the record, I'm neither. But I do know that Japan has a tradition of "if it's behind the property gate, it's invisible, even if it's visible", simply as a matter of being able to live together in close quarters. So a polite Japanese neighbor would ignore the laundry on the line and not take snaps of it.
But I still get the feeling that some Japanese are just as litigious as the worst in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
If you think normal women are nuts, wait till you get suckered into a relationship with someone with OCD.
I was a retard and lost 8 years of my life to one.
Re: (Score:3)
Not intended as a sexist comment, simply a reflection of my current life.
I know everyone is at risk of developing some mental illness at some point in their life, but the stats do show women being much more often affected than men (for Depression, 50% more likely in women than men).
Re: (Score:2)
So she's suing Google for a little over $7000... is that a lot in Japan? My instincts say no.
It'll get you a movie ticket and some ramen. Well, maybe some cheap ramen.