I've been meaning to give my review and commentary on an interesting piece from here in southwestern PA that came out a few weeks ago.  Seems that a couple from Franklin Park, PA, (a suburb just north of Pittsburgh) has filed suit in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court against Google, Inc., alleging that pictures which appeared on the Street View feature of the Internet giant's mapping function violated their privacy, according to a story from the AP.

Google obtains its "Street View" photos utilizing still cameras mounted on passenger vehicles which drive around taking pictures from different angles, which are then digitally "sewn" together to create panoramic 360-degree views of cities, towns and neighborhoods.  In their six-page complaint, plaintiffs Aaron and Christine Boring (swear I didn't make that up) allege that Google's "reckless conduct has exposed [the Borings'] private information to the public at large with the commensurate risks this entails".  The complaint further states that Google's vehicle trespassed onto their property when it drove down a private right-of-way to snap pics of their house that included their swimming pool.  The couple's attorney, Dennis Moskal says the Google vehicle came close enough to the pool "to hand them a drink."

Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who specializes in First Amendment and privacy law says that the case may have some merit, citing Daily Times-Democrat v. Graham, 162 So. 2d 474 (1964), an Alabama case in which a newspaper photographer had snapped a picture of a woman whose skirt had been blown over her head, á la Marilyn Monroe, in a carnival funhouse.  Although the newspaper argued that it was justified in printing the photo because it was taken in a public place, the court ruled that the photo violated the woman's right to privacy.  (In an interesting side note, Bankston has himself been captured by Google's cameras on more than one occasion and once was even observed smoking a cigarette outside his San Francisco office.  He'd told his family he had kicked the habit.)

Perhaps the greatest irony here is that the Borings, in an attempt to enforce their right to privacy, may have unwittingly put themselves under the microscope, since much of the info about their home is readily available to anyone who logs onto the county's online Real Estate Assessment website.  Not only that, but their home address is prominently displayed in the complaint, which can be obtained (for a fee) from the county's Department of Court Records website.

Google spokesman Larry Yu says that all the Borings had to do was to ask that the images be taken down.  "We actually make it pretty easy for people to submit a request to us to remove the imagery."  Not good enough, says Attorney Moskal, stating that simply removing the pics won't undo the damage or discourage Google from engaging in similar future conduct.  "Isn't litigation the only way to change a big business' conduct with the public?" he asks, "What happened to their accountability?"

That's funny, I've been wondering the same thing about Big Title.  A favorable ruling for the Borings may not set a precedent, but whatever the outcome, it's sure to have lasting implications in the debate over information vs. privacy.