Technology Pushes Established Laws

[Jim Finnel]

If you have ever planned a vacation in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or literally anywhere else on Earth, you can plot your trip with the aid of the popular Internet Web engine, Google.

One of its links, Google Maps, will allow anyone to enter an address and with one or two simple maneuvers view an image of that address. While the use of Google can be entertaining and educational as a tool to explore foreign sites, there is an increasing concern regarding privacy rights when neighborhoods and specific homes are depicted.

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a specific right of privacy, although the Supreme Court has found that there are "zones of privacy" within the 14th Amendment. However, these privacy rights are protected against certain governmental action. The Supreme Court has decided many cases affecting the rights of individuals and media to engage in speech, and Google publishing photographs of private homes probably would be considered protected speech.

Perhaps a person is engaging in illegal activity on his or her private property, and such activity might be depicted on Google Maps. The courts have previously upheld a search warrant against a media outlet on a judge's finding that the newspaper possessed photographs revealing the identity of individuals suspected of breaking the law. The court held that the critical element in a search in judicial proceedings is not that the property owner is suspected of crime, but that there is reason to believe that the things to be searched for are located on the property to which entrance is sought.

Also, the Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld a search warrant as a result of a law enforcement helicopter pilot who observed, from the air, marijuana growing on private property. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures of private property by the government; however, the court made a distinction between open fields and the grounds of a home, which enjoy a different type of protection.

The use of computers, the Internet and most other means of technology and communication, as well as the expanded definitions of speech and commerce, could not have possibly been envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, and the privacy interests of the individuals have expanded equally as fast since the Constitution was drafted. In addition to Google, there are dozens of other Internet sites that publish not only photographs of private homes, but also the appraised value, acreage, purchase price and date, and other "private" information. Many of these sites are used by registers of deeds across the country.

In assessing whether Google Maps' publication of photographs of homes constitutes an invasion of privacy, the clear answer is a definitive ... it depends.


News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Tennessean
Copyright: 2008 The Tennessean
Contact: www.tennessean.com | Nashville Customer Services | The Tennessean
Website: Technology pushes established laws | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean

 

[420]

time to move it indoors guys!

 

[Umpsy]

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures of private property by the government...

I hope everyone realizes that is incorrect. If you didn't notice this error while reading the article please read the Bill of Rights.

 

[Jim Finnel]

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III


No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII


In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[Jim Finnel]

good for you charley

karma does it again

 

[Jim Finnel]

Furor over Google views reignites

Images of rural properties in county removed over privacy concerns, but others surface

Google found itself at the center of a firestorm of controversy Monday due to its continuing efforts to photograph Sonoma County streetscapes.

Even after the Internet giant removed the images that ignited the ruckus, new examples emerged Monday that show Google repeatedly trespassed on private roads to photograph rural homes in Sonoma County.

The images, first reported Saturday in The Press Democrat, set off a furor in cyberspace and in Sonoma County. Privacy advocates debated on blogs and in Internet forums while people in Sonoma County questioned whether Google had overstepped by sharing photographs of their homes with the rest of the world.

The debate centers on Google Street View, a component of its online map tool that gives Internet users a panoramic view of places around the world using images taken with a high-tech camera mounted atop a roving car.

Google took heat from privacy advocates a year ago when it launched the controversial map tool in five major cities, including San Francisco and New York.

Some of the original privacy debate died down after Google began blurring faces and license plates captured in images. But its inability to stay off private property while photographing has reinvigorated critics.

"The only recourse for a consumer is to constantly check the Google Web site to see if their privacy has been invaded," said John Verdi, staff counsel for the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit advocate group. "Google has either not made attempts to vet private roads or gated communities, or have not been successful at doing it."

The company aims to photograph every public road in the world, spokeswoman Elaine Filadelfo said. Google instructs its drivers to stay off private roads, but Filadelfo would not provide details on other measures to prevent its roaming cameras from venturing onto private property.

"Our drivers are instructed to be very cautious," she said.

But more trespassing blunders came to light Monday as Sonoma County residents examined the map tool. Images revealed a Google car drove up private roads in the Sonoma Valley and a rural area outside Petaluma.

Residents of Repetto Ranch Road just outside Sonoma were surprised to discover Google had driven down their private road and photographed homes.

To the west near Petaluma, Google's car drove through open gates on Willie Bird Way and up the driveway of a home on the property, capturing images the entire way.

A story published Saturday in The Press Democrat revealed Google drove past a "no trespassing" sign and onto private property outside of Freestone to collect images.

This revelation spurred a fiery debate on the popular technology news Web site SlashDot.org. Readers posted more than 600 comments on the site, many of them wondering if Google would accidentally expose rural residents who were legally growing pot under the county and state medicinal marijuana laws.

Google has been photographing Sonoma County for more than a year, capturing an array of images, from schools and homes to tree forts and malls. It published the images in June, showing most of the roads from eastern Sonoma County to the Pacific Ocean -- and nearly all the cities in between.

Surprisingly, much of Santa Rosa was not photographed, although that is likely to change. Last week, a Google Street View car was spotted in downtown Santa Rosa.

While Google has posted satellite images for years, the Street View photographs offer much more intimate views of homes and private yards.

As it expands Street View into rural areas, Google is finding it can be difficult to distinguish between public and private roads.

Google was sued by a Pittsburgh couple in April after it drove up their driveway and photographed their home. Google also had to remove photos taken in a private community on the outskirts of Minneapolis. The residents of that community own the neighborhood roads, and enforce a trespassing ordinance.

Google does not want to trespass on private property, Filadelfo said. It will remove any photographs taken from private roads upon request, she said.

"It's completely unintentional," Filadelfo said.

Filadelfo was not sure if Google provided its drivers with maps that identified private roads. She also did not know if Google retained copies of images taken from private property after the photos were identified and removed from Google's site.

The Street View blunders are casting a negative light on Google's commitment to privacy, Verdi said. That might be an unsettling thought for many Internet users, who expose personal information to the company every day when they use its popular search engine, free e-mail service and its document reader.

"They need to find a way to fix this," Verdi said.

Filadelfo said she could understand why people felt that way but insisted people should focus on the strengths of Street View.

"It can be very beneficial for users," she said.

Sonoma County residents are split on the benefits of the service.

"It makes me really paranoid," said Jewly Johnson, whose Timber Cove house was photographed from a public road. "It's a matter of safety. I don't feel safe anymore."

Jeff Lester, a real estate agent from Camp Meeker, said it was a great tool for him professionally.

"It helps me show clients properties," he said. "You can sort of get a lay of the land that wasn't possible before."


Source