Group items tagged

A couple in Pittsburgh whose lawsuit claimed that Street View on Google Maps is a reckless invasion of their privacy lost their case. Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant last April, alleging that Google "significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests" when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked "private road." The couple claimed in their five-count lawsuit that finding their home clearly visible on Google's Street View caused them "mental suffering" and diluted their home value. They sought more than $25,000 in damages and asked that the images of their home be taken off the site and destroyed. However, the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania wasn't impressed by the suit and dismissed it (PDF) Tuesday, saying the Borings "failed to state a claim under any count." Ironically, the Borings subjected themselves to even more public exposure by filing the lawsuit, which included their home address. In addition, the Allegheny County's Office of Property Assessments included a photo of the home on its Web site. The Borings are not alone in their ire toward the Google Maps feature. As reported earlier, residents in California's Humboldt County complained that the drivers who are hired to collect the images are disregarding private property signs and driving up private roads. In January, a private Minnesota community near St. Paul, unhappy that images of its streets and homes appeared on the site, demanded Google remove the images, which the company did. However, Google claims to be legally allowed to photograph on private roads, arguing that privacy no longer exists in this age of satellite and aerial imagery. "Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the Borings' complaint Not long after the feature launched in May 2007, privacy advocates criticized Google for displaying photographs that included people's faces and car license

There is no denying that Google is a giant success. But its size has made the "do no evil" mantra all the more difficult for it to follow - and for some of us to believe. Lately, it seems every new release and every new decision draws the ire of someone, be it politicians, privacy campaigners, or even villagers. While the Google brand is certainly in better shape than many tech firms, its constant moves to control more and more of our data and information has some up in arms. Privacy Three recent announcements have drawn the attention of privacy campaigners in the UK - Latitude, Street View, and behavioural advertising. Latitude is Google's mobile tracking system. Sign up for it, add your friends, and you can all see exactly where each other is via your mobile phone signal pinpointed on a Google map. Handy if you're bored and want to know who's out and about, but the location tracking system could be frightening for a host of other reasons, some say. Last month, Liberal Democrats Home Affairs spokesman Tom Brake filed an early day motion (EDM) asking the government to look into Latitude. Brake said: "This system poses an insidious threat to our hard-won liberties. 24-hour surveillance and a Big Brother society are new realities." But the heat was off Latitude after Street View was unveiled in the UK. The photo mapping system features street-level photos of 25 cities, offering a virtual tour of places such as London, Manchester and more. But some people aren't so happy having their homes, cars and selves photographed and mapped - even with face and number plates blurred. The backlash didn't take long to start. Within a day, Privacy International was on the case, asking the Information Commissioner to shut the site down.

VANDALS who attacked Fred Goodwin's mansion could have been helped by Google's new Street View, it was claimed yesterday. Security experts say the attackers may have "cased" the shamed banker's £3million Edinburgh home using the detailed images provided by the controversial new service. It could have helped them plan the attack, in which windows were smashed and a car wrecked, by showing them how to get in and escape unnoticed.

"Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin Wednesday said the Internet giant "screwed up" by collecting personal data through wireless networks and promised new oversight as European officials pledged to open investigations of the data collection. Authorities in Germany, Spain and Italy said Wednesday they were investigating Google and its Street View service, which uses camera-equipped vehicles to take street images and mark the location of Wi-Fi networks. Mr. Brin, speaking the same day at Google's developer conference in San Francisco, said the company would put "more internal controls in place" to prevent such data captures in the future, including the hiring of outside help. "Trust is very important to us," Mr. Brin said. "We're going to do everything we can to preserve that trust.""

G apologizes. Again, better to ask forgiveness... If users remain silent & gvt doesn't prosecute, why comply?

"Google has said that its world-roving Street View cars have been collecting information sent over open WiFi networks, contradicting previous assurances by the company. This means that Google may have collected emails and other private information if they traveled over WiFi networks while one of the cars was in range. Previously, the company said no payload data was ever intercepted."

IT companies seem to shoot their own effort in the foot on a regular basis. Usually due to a lack of process. The dot com bubble was small compared to what may be coming for trust in IT services.

"Google has decided to stop its Street View cars from sniffing wireless networking data after an embarrassing privacy gaffe."

Google decided to stop violating our privacy after they were caught? Now that's forward-thinking business strategy. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Some people think social media requires trust to be a sustainable model.

Germany's consumer protection minister strongly criticized Google for a widespread privacy breach and insisted Saturday the U.S. Internet giant must cooperate better with data protection authorities. Google Inc. issued an apology Friday, acknowledging it has been vacuuming up fragments of people's online activities broadcast over public Wi-Fi networks for the past four years while expanding a mapping feature called "Street View."

A four year mistake is either incompetance or a lie. Which way will Google choose to portray itself?

By now, many employees are uncomfortably aware that their every keystroke at work, from email on office computers to text messages on company phones, can be monitored legally by their employers. What employees typically don't expect is for the company to spy on them while on password-protected sites using nonwork computers. But even that privacy could be in jeopardy. A case brewing in federal court in New Jersey pits bosses against two employees who were complaining about their workplace on an invite-only discussion group on MySpace.com, a social-networking site owned by News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. The case tests whether a supervisor who managed to log into the forum -- and then fired employees who badmouthed supervisors and customers there -- had the right to do so. The case has some legal and privacy experts concerned that companies are intruding into areas that their employees had considered off limits. "The question is whether employees have a right to privacy in their non-work-created communications with each other. And I would think the answer is that they do," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment expert and partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP in New York. The legal landscape is murky. For the most part, employers don't need a reason to fire nonunion workers. But state laws in California, New York and Connecticut protect employees who engage in lawful, off-duty activities from being fired or disciplined, according to a report prepared by attorneys at the firm Proskauer Rose LLP. While private conversations might be covered under those laws, none of the statutes specifically addresses social networking or blogging. Thus, privacy advocates expect to see more of these legal challenges. In February, three police officers in Harrison, N.Y., were suspended after they allegedly made lewd remarks about the town mayor on a Facebook account. The officers mistakenly thought the remarks were protected with a password, but city officials view