Privacy on Google Street View(4 Posts)
A Canadian woman has won a very small payout from Google because her cleavage was visible on the Street View function of Google Maps. The judge said her dignity had been violated.
Reporting of this story has been atrocious even by the media's misogynistic standards:
1) It's predictably been reported as humorous or titillating because BOOBS.
2) The plaintiff, who worked for a bank, quit her job in part because of the "malicious comments and humiliation she suffered at work". I haven't seen any reporting on what action, if any, was taken by or against the bank; nor on why, in the 21st century, any woman should be shamed for sitting outdoors in the sunshine in a vest top.
3) The ubiquity of voyeurism and body-shaming, the inevitability of sexist and demeaning comments related to women and their bodies, all show that an important part of women's "privacy" is not protected under the current understanding of the term. No news outlet has taken up the issue of a woman's right to control the publication and reproduction of images of her body.
4) Quite the opposite, in fact. A local tabloid has reproduced the Street View image she went to court to contest. The image is now all over the internet.
5) Below the line, there's the usual victim-blaming, slut-shaming, another-woman-milking-the-legal-system misogyny that this sort of reporting is designed to encourage.
Struggling to get excited about this tbh. In fact, I'm going to sit on my porch in my undies and hope Google goes past. Two grand would go a long way.
Have you read the court document?
The plaintiff's first complaint was regarding her number plate being visible. It made no mention of her boobs, or herself, but attacked Google for showing her registration plate and violating local laws.
She later complained again, two years after finding out that she was visible on street view, and asked them to blur out the rest of her body - note that her face was already blurred - along with her registration number.
The judge concluded that her privacy was violated because her number plate was not blurred, and rejected Google's argument that she had given consent to be photographed by being outside. He clearly stated that the payout was with regards to the number plate, and not relating to her cleavage. The amount she was awarded was significantly reduced because of this.
Your view on this seems to be extremely tainted.
How is the OP's view tainted? Most people don't read an article about a court case then think "hang on, I'd better read the actual court documents to make sure my view isn't tainted".
I agree ezinma.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.