They didn't like that Google invaded their "privacy". Some of the court papers are available online, and if you check them out, you'll notice mainly boring gibberish but also the address of the home. Suing Google has already done more damage to their "privacy" than the pictures on their own.
Aaron and Christine Boring want at least $25,000 and the 360 degree pictures destroyed, but something tells us the case doesn't stand a chance against Google's well paid, state-of-the-art, corporate lawyers, which come from the best lawyer factories in the nation.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-05-2008 @ 12:06PM
chrisaroz said...
If it was me, I woulda skipped the pool and gone with central heat and air.. but different strokes for different folks.
Reply
4-05-2008 @ 6:28PM
Thayne said...
LOL!!!! That's great. Personally, that house is a sh*t-stain. I can understand why they don't want people looking at it.
4-05-2008 @ 1:44PM
Aaron Slater said...
Ooh, the plot unfolds... take a trip down their street, and suddenly it reads "This image is no longer available".
but did they pay the $25,000?
Reply
4-05-2008 @ 2:58PM
Andrew said...
Anne and Christine Boring?
How dull...
Reply
4-05-2008 @ 2:58PM
Andrew said...
wow... it's definitely Aaron...
I'm a fool..
4-07-2008 @ 1:05AM
yargnodrog said...
First, I feel that comments about the condition or appearance of this man and womans property(good or bad) are off the ball.The real issue here is a citizens right to expect a certain level of privacy.Google is nothing more than another giant money making enterprise.Not some Dudley DoRight trying to make the world a better place thru technology.What is next, An overhead 360 of your property via sattilite with your family in the backyard?There needs to be at minimum something along the lines of the goverments Do-Not-Call program.It amazes me that people screamed and made all of the guff about spam email and laugh at something like this.Better wake up Bra.Maybe I would like to record your air transmitted voice conversations and make them available for download as an mp3 file.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 10:11AM
Pablo C said...
Anything visible "in plain view" from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices and images. There is no legal precedent to prevent a photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view from a public area.
Reply
4-15-2008 @ 9:58PM
angel said...
Its not about value its about safety. They are showing peoples back yards and homes. This shows who ever is looking that there may be kids there or something of value. It also give thief's a great view of a persons home and the access or hidden access ability. We must be careful at what we unleash and who it effects.
It is a great tool for the tax assessor though!!
Reply