According to the smoking gun link from the writeup, the road was 'clearly marked as private road'. Much of the court's decision should hinge on whether or not a 'reasonable person' would recognize the road as off limits to the public.

Because that is the core of the case...trespassing aggravated by invasion of privacy for commercial purposes. Google didn't accidentally wander on these people's property, they did so with specific intent. I personally don't think its an issue worth millions, but the point needs to be made that just because google has a mission to index the world's information, doesn't mean that it gets to index my information without approval.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

...we shouldn't allow the basic argument about property rights (i.e. whether Google's truck had the right to be where it was) to extend into an argument about whether Google's truck had the right to photograph what it did

Why not? Either you have a right to an expectation of privacy on your property or you not have that right. As far as I know the law in most (perhaps all) states says that most photography on public property is fair game, even if the photographs taken are of private property. Put another way, if a person standing in a place off your property can see you, then you have no expectation of privacy. If you are situated in a place on your property where you cannot be seen from off your property, then you have the right to expect privacy. A trespasser violates your property rights, but he also may be violating your privacy rights - that latter violation is greatly compounded by photography.

If you are situated in a place on your property where you cannot be seen from off your property, then you have the right to expect privacy.

Well, do you?  This is where Google's claim about satellite photography becomes interesting.  Even if the satellite is directly over your property, it's ludicrous to claim that it's "on" your property.  Likewise, airspace is generally considered public property - so if I fly an airplane high over your house and take a photo with a high powered zoom camera, have I violated your privacy?  

All that aside, there is still the question of whether or not the road that the Google van was on should truly be considered private property.  The road is apparently maintained through a joint effort by all the people who live on it - not just by the Borings alone.  If that is the case, then I think that unless there was substantial signage to the effect that the road should be considered private, that Google has a fairly strong case that it should actually be considered public.

Even if the satellite is directly over your property, it's ludicrous to claim that it's "on" your property

Yes, that is ludicrous. But I was talking about people standing (or sitting, or whatever) on the ground outside your property.

...is still the question of whether or not the road that the Google van was on should truly be considered private property

Well, I was replying to your comment that said, in part, "we shouldn't allow the basic argument about property rights (i.e. whether Google's truck had the right to be where it was) to extend into an argument about whether Google's truck had the right to photograph what it did." I am saying only that if the road was private property (I don't know what the local law or custom was), then it is reasonable to expect it to be private.

Mostly about what the Borings would say if their house was simply on the end of a public road in a cul-de-sac. What they're saying is "hey, this road is a private road and Google (just like everyone else) needs to ask permission to be there." What Google is saying is it's not a private road, ergo they didn't need to ask any permission. Is it or isn't it a private road? Well I assume that the court will make that determination and the Borings will have to provide some sort of proof that it is and that will be the end of this particular story. BTW, based upon some familiarity with Street View, I doubt that the Borings would be making this argument even if they were at the end of a cul-de-sac. I say this because my neighborhood is designated on Google Maps as having a Street View. The van obviously parked at the end of my street where it dumps onto a larger street and the Street View only gives a glimpse of the first two houses on either side of my street from the corner. As we're the sixth house on the right, I won't be suing Google for invading my privacy. Nor would I because any photos are taken from a public road.

There are, of course, private roads in Delaware. Most of the ones I've seen are clearly marked as being private and, even if the USPS does deliver the mail to those addresses, doesn't give anyone else the right to enter to do whatever it is they wish to do. When I first saw this story, my initial reaction was "you mean if the Google van had just pulled up to the end of the road and shot their picture of the Borings' house" that would be the end of that? And I'm reading the story and the complaint where the Borings claimed they were subjected to humiliation and embarassment and I'm thinking "aww, get a dog." When I read the comment on radaronline that the house was "a rather ugly little house" I checked in the box that said "does this cause the Borings embarrassment". But, when you get to Google's response that there is no such thing as privacy, I'm checking in the box that asks "well should there be."

Illegitimi non carborundum.

That's crazy.  You are happy to let the self-important overfed geeks at Google have access to this information, but not the people you have elected and hired to protect yourself?  Google is accountable to no one, not even its stockholders. Your government, by contrast, can be kicked out on its ass by the voters every 2 to 4 years.  Google tells you little about what it is collecting and even less about what it is doing with that information, but the government will lay it all at your feet with a FOIA request or a letter to your congressman.  Google can throw a pizza party and have the summer interns gape at the Most Embarrassing Surveillance Photos if they want, but if government tries that you'll be reading about the resulting inspector general report in the New York Times within a year.  Google is a hell of a lot more frightening than our democratically elected and accountable government.

The problem with limiting state surveillance to "those that are minimally required to maintain public order" is that a whole lot of surveillance is required to maintain public order.  (Unless you have a really minimal Wild West standard of "maintain public order").  What you have described, basically, is the Chinese model.  This is not the Western civil-liberties based approach.  We don't measure it by how much surveillance is allowed, but by whether each particular instance of surveillance invades someone's privacy.  It is wholly inconsistent, under this model, to say that it's fine if Google invades your privacy but not fine if the FBI does it.  Something is either private, or it isn't, and if you agree that Google gets to see it you can't argue anymore that it is private.

We don't measure it by how much surveillance is allowed, but by whether each particular instance of surveillance invades someone's privacy.  It is wholly inconsistent, under this model, to say that it's fine if Google invades your privacy but not fine if the FBI does it.  Something is either private, or it isn't, and if you agree that Google gets to see it you can't argue anymore that it is private.

The problem is that we're looking at it from two entirely different angles.  You're focusing on the right to privacy.  I'm focusing on the right to freedom of expression.  To me, the right to freedom of expression is more important than the right to privacy.  Fuck, the right to privacy isn't even enunciated directly in the Bill of Rights.  The SCOTUS may have argued it exists in the "penumbra" (whatever that means), but it's not spelled out directly.  Free speech, free press - that's right there at the top.  I will risk a little bit in terms of privacy to preserve what I think is a far more important right.  I would rather preserve the right of journalists to snoop around and take pictures here and there, than risk that the courts will find an absolute right to privacy that the government (and government officials) feels free to use to squelch any and every bit of investigative reporting.

That was a very interesting court case in Europe with that very question at hand. I don't recall it discussed here or on plastic but it's a very compelling question in this day and age and I'm not fully sure on which side I come down.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

It's quite another thing when it's being done by the state itself.

How is it actually any different, though, when the state has shown itself willing to co-opt the private collection of data as if the state itself had collected the data (in the case of the telecom immunity scandal).

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

How is it actually any different, though, when the state has shown itself willing to co-opt the private collection of data as if the state itself had collected the data (in the case of the telecom immunity scandal).

Well, I obviously don't agree with the state's actions in that case, but I don't think we should be banning private behavior just because the state might abuse it.  Should we ban all photography because the state might decide to take everyone's photographs and make a giant database out of them?  How far do you take that line of thought?