 |
|
Google spokesman Larry Yu said the site indicates that property owners can get the company to remove images if they cite a good reason and can prove they own the property depicted…
Google is not the only Web site with a photo of the Borings’ property.
The Allegheny County real estate Web site has a photo, plus a detailed description of the home and the couple’s names. Similar information, including pictures, of nearly every property in the county is on the Web site.
I try not to lapse into cursing when reflecting upon articles like this one.
In a culture rife with litigious, self-seeking, egregious fools – the Borings are no surprise. Not to me nor, do I imagine, to Google’s attorneys.
They bought the POS for $163,000 on October 18, 2006… and then Google drove their vans around the US and crashed the house prices. Fucking losers.
They also need to sue the city, for putting a street in front of their home so that people driving by can “devaluate” their home, just by looking at it.
Amazing…
I don’t see why they can’t just request Google remove the photo of their home as Google states they’ll do.
Unfortunately the process required to have Google remove any image from Street View, especially if it’s a photo of a person, is as difficult as getting the Bush Administration to pull out of Iraq. They require you to submit a whole host of personal information to prove your case, and they then catalog that information. Suing them may be the only way to get them to remove you from the site without them further invading your privacy.
#4 – wrong.
The background on this story is unclear. The owners allege the google pictures were taken from a position that was on their private drive==not from the public street.
If that is true, then we should all understand that google trespassed on their property and should be sued and pay damages. In this case, a fair estimate of their damages is -zero- . Still, some examplary damages to keep google’s future activities on the straight and narrow is warranted==the amount to be left to wiser heads. It should be enough to encourage them, but not to hurt them.
If there is no proof the pictures were taken on the private drive, the owners should pay for extortion.
Come on, it’s a money grab by some very stupid people. How exactly does a photo of on google devalue your property? Oh, what’s that? It doesn’t?
If they feel so strongly about it, request to have it removed and move on.
At least we know where to go to toilet paper the place.
It’s not a private drive Bobbo, it’s a street that is posted *private road*, supposedly.
The guy is a computor tech or programmer and the little woman is a teacher. So we know they are smart enough to know they could get some money out of it.
The best part of this is that my Mom went to high school with Aarons dad. She said his dad was the first Boring ever to graduate from high school. The family home was in a **hollow** called Crows Run Hallow west of Pittsburgh. A garden spot let me tell you, I’ve been there. 🙂
Let’s see, according to the Allegheny County Assessor the Borings paid $163,000 for a house built in 1916, with 984 sq. ft. of living space, no central A/C, graded D+ by the Assessor and looks like sh*t in the picture. The previous owner (Mr. Terry McQuillan) paid only $57,000.
This is proof positive that Mr. McQuillan is remarkably persuasive as a real estate salesman or that, as is more likely, Barnum was right about the birth rate of suckers.
To: Jägermeister
That chart was just great. Do you have the link to the BBC article it came from and would you please share it here. Thanks!
I thought this site was in favor of privacy?
@#9: Based on the Google Map, the road is their driveway, and is on their property. They have a line of trees along their property line to screen their house from view. The pictures on the Smoking Gun website were clearly taken on their property, while the pictures by the county assessors weren’t.
Guillermo:
Just do a google for the image and name and voila:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7073131.stm
-Ben.
Looking at the county website it seems that they bought the property for $163,000 in 2006, which by 2007 was only worth $116,500. That’s a pretty steep drop in value over a year!
So did Google cause the house to lose that much money through the photo being taken – or did the house losing that amount of value prompt the couple to try and recoup some from Google?
It seems people on this site prefer an opt-out policy for privacy violations rather than an opt-in
Thanks for the link Uncle Ben. It is an interesting article with great graphics.
It was their driveway, not a public street. See the pics:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0407081google1.html
I cannot believe the stupidity of the posters on this site! Do you realize Google is making money off your homes when they have sponsors who pay for advertisement on Google Maps?
Regardless of their financial background, Google had no right to take pictures of their property. I have done random searches on Google Maps and have seen LICENSE PLATES of cars parked on private property. It takes only a few clicks to clear up the blur and make the information visible.
When will companies start taking responsibility for their wrongdoings? When will we stop making excuses for them as well.
The majority of you who posted ignorant remarks should really be ashamed. Let’s hope your house is not found on Google by someone you do not want in your business. Let’s hope that same person does not make it a habit of driving by your property now that they know what it looks like. Think on that! 😉