Google in Trouble with Street View Pictures of Woman's CleavageAdded: Thursday, November 13th, 2014
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2013, www.extratorrent.cc
The tech giant has been fined 2,250 Canadian dollars because it posted an image on Street View, which showed a Canadian woman’s cleavage. A Canadian court judge has decided that despite being in public, sitting on the steps of her private property, the Canadian woman’s privacy had been disrespected.
The woman’s lawyer claimed that besides malicious comments and humiliation she suffered at work, the woman has also experienced a significant loss of personal modesty and dignity.
As you know, Google’s Street View cars drive around the streets with cameras, capturing a 360-degree view for mapping services. Afterwards, the pictures are stitched together in order to create a service letting Google users to browse streets and buildings from the ground level.
However, Google Maps has seen resistance from various information protection regulators in many countries. For example, Germany has fined Google €145,000 for “unprecedented privacy violations”. It is also known that Italy also recently fined Google €1m over complaints that the Street View cars that were driving around 4 years ago were not clearly recognizable. Finally, in the United Kingdom, last year the company was demanded to delete information captured about Wi-Fi networks by its Street View cars.
The Canadian woman had initially sued for $45,000 in damages. Her charges included the “right to have a private life” – she pointed out that despite her face in the picture had been automatically blurred out, like all other images of people taken by Google’s Street View cars, she could be clearly identified thanks to her house and car registration plate.
The woman clamed she suffered mockeries, derisions, disrespectful and sexually related comments in relation to the pictures because people could identify her despite anonymization precautions taken by Google.
The photos in question were captured by the cars four years ago and were later released onto the Google Maps website in October 2009. The woman claimed she requested Google remove the picture, but got no response from the firm headquartered in Ontario for its Canadian operations.
She filed the case two years later with the Canadian small claims court. In response, the company claimed that it had blurred all the parts of her image, and her house was also blurred in 2011 removing her image from the mapping service.
Posted by: Date:
Thursday, November 13th, 2014
|well that canadian woman got good money than nice doing business....|
|Perhaps she shouldn't be wearing a top like that in public? Anyone who walked/drove by could see her cleavage and snapped a pic with their cell phones etc...|
I'm all for protecting women but not when it's their own stupidity.
Assumption of risk should apply here.
|A Woman can wear anything she want..who are you decide what she wear or what she won't?|
|@mridul2neo With luck she will not be wearing anything, even if that means turning off the lights!|
Back on topic. Google helps/works/senators. In other words, google is employed by our (USA) government.
And don't think for min. they aren't, because you would be an ass for even thinking that.
|Another point. Anyone remember MSDOS? Bill gates and his friend made that OS. Why and how? Because the US|
government needed a way to interface with a Simple Machine...Do you think that all that money Bill gates
made was just for the OS? Nope. Government funded projects. People, Do your homework. Have a good day.
|sluts are everywhere hooray !|
|posted by (2014-11-14 21:23:09)|
|posted by (2014-11-15 03:49:06)|
|Sloppy writing, again. "The photos in question were captured by the cars four years ago and were later released onto the Google Maps website in October 2009.".|
Might want to ask a 5 year how to count to 5. Pictures taken 4 years ago released 5 years ago. Maybe the tag "2013" is on this article because it was posted a year late?
|posted by (2014-11-15 03:55:05)|
|@Sammy1968: Why do you challenge someone to look up your bullsh!t when someone can easily refute it in 10 seconds? Really f'n stupid. Do your homework.|
"MS-DOS resulted from a request in 1981 by IBM for an operating system to use in its IBM PC range of personal computers. Microsoft quickly bought the rights to 86-DOS from Seattle Computer Products, and began work on modifying it to meet IBM's specification."
"MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS  – owned by Seattle Computer Products, written by Tim Peterson. Development of 86-DOS took only six weeks, as it was basically a clone of Digital Research's CP/M (for 8080/Z80 processors), ported to run on 8086 processors and with two notable differences compared to CP/M, an improved disk sector buffering logic and the introduction of FAT12 instead of the CP/M filesystem. This first version was shipped in August 1980. Microsoft, which needed an operating system for the then-new Intel 8086 but had none available, hired Tim Paterson in May 1981 and bought 86-DOS 1.10 for $75,000 in July of the same year. Microsoft kept the version number, but renamed it MS-DOS. They also licensed MS-DOS 1.10/1.14 to IBM, who, in August 1981, offered it as PC DOS 1.0 as one of three operating systems for the IBM 5150, or the IBM PC."
|posted by (2014-11-15 05:27:21)|
|@Sammy1968: Have you ever heard of Captain Obvious?|
|posted by (2014-11-15 05:59:17)|
|As you know, Google’s Street View cars drive around the streets...|
so what's with the pic of some nutjob on a tricycle, who looks like a good candidate for an accident?
|Number 10/11. Your that stupid. Our government owns these Companies. Your either really stupid or just plain restarted.|
|And @11. Stop copying and|
pasting crap you know nothing about.
I was borne in 1968. My Dad bought a TRS-80 Model 1. when I was 12yrs old. Get real.
|posted by (2014-11-15 12:24:06)|
|I could do with being just plain restarted, come to think of it.|
|posted by (2014-11-15 13:11:25)|
|Oh yeah, and in 1974 I was working on an IBM 360/40 mainframe running DOS.|
Anyone remember that?
|Whatever the two of you. I know things that I should not even mention. But I did as a wake up call for those that don't. Simple. Just like your mind.|
|BTW Mr mahtin. I respect people that program in code.Machine language. It's a talent. I barley made it with BASIC/with Assembly language added. In 1974 I was just learning how to masturbate. Cheers.|
|posted by (2014-11-16 06:53:52)|
|That's a skill I didn't list on my job applications, but assembler language was in there.|
|posted by (2014-11-16 15:32:26)|
BTW, watch out, there are llamas.
|Google in Trouble with Street View Pictures of Woman's Cleavage? I wonder, was the cleavage considered as RATED-R, PORNOGRAPHIC or shamefully UGLY? Lol!||
Most Popular Stories