vvvslaxman Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 http://gizmodo.com/google-fined-2-000-for-street-view-cleavage-shot-1653199227 :cantstop:
DomainK Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Technology vs privacy. The line needs to be drawn early enough.
Lord Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 She was sitting in full public view,hows that invasion of privacy :hmmmm2:
Sachin=GOD Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 She was sitting in full public view' date='hows that invasion of privacy :hmmmm2:[/quote'] I am guessing she did not consent to having any part of her body being shown to everyone in the world. BTW some people are saying that now some women would deliberately sit in the path of google street view cars to either sue google or they have their cleavage show on street view.
Lord Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 I am guessing she did not consent to having any part of her body being shown to everyone in the world. BTW some people are saying that now some women would deliberately sit in the path of google street view cars to either sue google or they have their cleavage show on street view. If you are sitting in public,thats an implied consent. Obviously the picture was taken by accident.Don't think the case will stand
hhunaeh Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 If you are sitting in public,thats an implied consent. Obviously the picture was taken by accident.Don't think the case will stand I don't think it was a consent for the whole world to see her.
Sachin=GOD Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 If you are sitting in public,thats an implied consent. Obviously the picture was taken by accident.Don't think the case will stand Google fined for 'disrespectful' Street View photos of woman's cleavage http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/31/google-fined-street-view-pictures-woman-cleavage
Lord Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 I don't think it was a consent for the whole world to see her. It is,when you are in public.You can't control who watches you in public. Ofcourse taking pictures is wrong,but that seems an accident
Sachin=GOD Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 It is,when you are in public.You can't control who watches you in public. Ofcourse taking pictures is wrong,but that seems an accident She was on the steps of her house - I won't call that public. Certainly was an accident but as DomainK said earlier, technology vs privacy debates will continue.
vvvslaxman Posted November 2, 2014 Author Posted November 2, 2014 What do guys have to do to get money without being prosecuted for indecent exposure :--D
Lord Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 She was on the steps of her house - I won't call that public. Certainly was an accident but as DomainK said earlier, technology vs privacy debates will continue. can't exactly be called private either :hmmm:
DomainK Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 can't exactly be called private either :hmmm: It's more complicated than that. The woman was photographed in her own property without permission, the photograph was published, she was identifiable and her address was exposed along with the photograph. All that without her consent and without her knowledge. Now we have people flying cameras mounted on drones photographing people on their roofs and through windows etc. Once a wrong precedence is set, there will be some serious legal chaos very soon.
hhunaeh Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 The Magic Bush - South Park recent episode of south park was about drones and privacy.
yoda Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 $2000 file for Google is insulting. A fine of $1 mil would have been appropriate. I love Google as a company, but invasion of privacy is a slippery slope and companies need to be kept in check.
Recommended Posts