My point of view is ..definetly, all Google Street Views should not be allowed.

What I feel about it:
- It damages tourism.

- It may help to criminals to organise their bank robbery.

- There is a probability that it can be invasion to privacy.

..another surprising fact are Bing maps..
For me unbelievable.. You can see what is behind a bank….

I call Shenanigans.
Google has a program that scans all images for things shaped like license plates and automatically blurs them – rendering any plates unreadable.

We live in a private subdivision whose streets are not maintained by the county. I was absolutely livid when I saw my OPEN garage and vehicle with readable plates (it only takes a few clicks to make it out) or the school bus our children ride with the number brandished so boldly. I have been appalled at the blatant disregard for the law Google has taken in some of these instances. If we are to live by the laws set in place, why aren’t conglomerates made to do so as well?

Shameful!! Very shameful to the many of you who condone such unethical behavior and who degrade those working people who deserve the same protection you do!

I guess morality means nothing to you people.

People are entitled to what is called a “reasonable expectation of privacy” under certain circumstances. This has been established by cases on the subject. One of the times they are entitled to it is if they are inside their own home. That means if you take a picture of them through the window, or potentially even through an open door, then you are indeed invading their privacy.

I know this because I was recently involved in such a case. The house in question was set back somewhere around 150 feet from the street and the neighbor across the street, using a zoom lens, took pictures of the property across the street. This was ruled an invasion of privacy and the plaintiff prevaled, with monetary damages.

In this case where it is a private street I believe the test for privacy should indeed be what a normal person (sans any telescope, zoom lense, special audio amplifier etc) can see or hear from a public place.

I think they are suing for far too little. I also agree that there is no need for the aerial photos and that they could, indeed be used at least in part to plan a break in.

Google counters with the option to remove the pictures, however, the infraction of the law took place the instant the picture/video was taken. Offering to remove it later does not remedy the situation. What they should have done to be legal was to get the permission of the landowner to photograph their property.

I wonder how many people would agree to this and how many would turn it down. I know that I would tell google to take a hike and stay out of/off of my property.

Steve