back to article Weeing Frenchman sues Google over Street View photo

A Frenchman is suing Google over a Street View photo that shows him peeing in his garden, which has made him the laughing stock of his village. As with most people in Street View pics, the man is slightly blurred, but because he comes from such a small place and he was at his own house, everyone recognised him. "He discovered …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward


    ... or it didn't happen

    1. Isendel Steel

      Re: Pics...

      6mins ago

      1. Steve Evans

        Re: Pics...

        Is that *the* picture?

        He looks like he's just standing there. Couldn't tell he was Oui'ing at all.

        1. Isendel Steel

          Re: Pics...

          I also noticed the yellow hose - possibly washing l'auto ?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pics...

          Nor me, and by bringing the case to court has meant any person viewing the register and daily mail will see the pic.

          I can kinda see something to the right of the number plate, but I guess if your not going to pi$$ in your toilet, you never know who is looking. But even if there is a hose pipe ban, don't pi$$ on your car!

          Perhaps having a warning vehicle in front of the google camera car/van might an idea, after all i guess the aim of the game is to photograph streets etc, not the people.

      2. Richard IV

        Re: Pics...

        Isn't Lord Rothermere's non-dom status down to his French holdings?

      3. Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pics...

        That backside should be blurred out to protect the rest of us

    2. Arctic fox

      I think that someone is.........

      ............taking the piss.

    3. LarsG


      peeing outside is a very well known French pastime.

      Why the surprise?

      Why is he complaining when his neighbors see him do it all the time?

      It's a Way of life in France.

  2. TRT Silver badge

    So long...

    as he wasn't filling up wine bottles.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Every man does this sort of thing now and then - the desire to mark our territory is in our DNA... Nothing to be ashamed of IMHO.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "This gentleman is an awkward customer who hopes to make a quick buck."

    ...or possibly doesn't appreciate being photographed in his own damned garden and put on the internet. If his gate was closed and he couldn't be seen by pedestrians, then he would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, IMO.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I know

      That dam Google with their magic wall penetrating street view system,

      How about this simple rule to live by - if you don't want anyone to see what you are doing then don't do it where anyone can see.

      Else learn to laugh it off.

      (can someone explain why it feels like the percentage of people who are just stupid is rising so fast?)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: rise of the stupid

        Stupid people tend to have offspring more frequently than clever people. Assuming that intelligence is somewhat based on biological factors, then the answer is pretty clear.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: rise of the stupid

          My two theories

          One - there is the same amount of "smarts" to be distributed to every generation. So as the number of people increase there are more people are at the end of the line when we run out. Ask anyone from an older generation and they will be very happy to tell you how stupid the youth of today are. {}:>))

          or in the past stupid people would die off at an early age (well, they are stupid) and have less of an impact on the rest of us. Now we do so much to protect them and keep them alive - not sure why.

      2. Ian Michael Gumby

        Re: I know

        Google's cars have the camera's mounted on a contraption that's on top of the roof of the car.

        Assuming that they are taking pics while they are collecting Lidar data, the cameras are at least 6' off the ground, if not higher.

        IMHO the guy's lawsuit is valid.

        1. Lockwood

          Re: I know

          My eyes are almost 6' off the ground... Over 6' if I'm on tiptoes.

          The camera is therefore seeing what Joe in the street would see.

          Still a valid lawsuit?

          1. Ian Michael Gumby

            Re: I know


            I said that they are over 6'. How much, I don't know.

            Doesn't matter.

            There is an expectation of privacy.

            Looking at the photo. I'd say the camera was a tad higher than 6'

            1. Richard Brown

              Re: I know

              A quick search (and Google is your friend here!) shows the camera to be, perhaps, 10 feet above ground level.


              Compare the gentleman in the background to the camera height, assume he is 6 feet tall.

              1. Marcelo Rodrigues

                Re: I know

                This is a pic I took from a Google Street car, as it passed by me.

                I was walking, I'm 1,86 m and this car is not a tall one. Picture took in Brazil.

                Ah, yes. The camera is the red spherical thing.


        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I know

          Bollocks, my eyes are at least 6' off the ground. Just because you're a shortarse doesn't mean everything above your head is private.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I know

          My god your right - we need to pass some laws

          Everyone over 6 feet needs to crawl everywhere

          All buses, trucks and tall SUVs need black out windows

          Stilts - just shoot anyone walking on stilts

          Ban any neighbors from having houses that may see into the yard - or they can't have windows.

          Or maybe just say if you whip it when outside just smile for the camera.

        4. MrZoolook

          If I was judging this case...

          His case revolves around the fact he was photographed while urinating, correct?

          So as a judge (real life judge in Crown Court), I would be required to be shown conclusive proof that he was urinating, rather then merely washing his car - as can be surmised by the hosepipe.

          On the subject of invasion of privacy, there really is no case to answer anyway. Google did not photograph people in the street, they photographed the streets - people just happened to be in them at the time. Its no different to photographing a statue in the park, your children swimming, your car, or anything else in a public place where people are also incidentally photographed. Unless you intend SPECIFICALLY to photograph somebody, you are entitled to take photographs in the street. What you see on Street View is exactly what you see from eye level (approx 6 ft as you say). Therefore there is no invasion of privacy also.

          I would probably throw the case out (with a recommendation that Google simply blur him out entirely and be done with it) on the basis that he will be unable to prove he wasn't doing anything that 1000's of other people in the world were doing and have no problem with it.

      3. Vic

        Re: I know

        > can someone explain why it feels like the percentage of people who

        > are just stupid is rising so fast?

        It's the elect-tro-lites.


        [Off to watch "Ow my balls"]

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I know

        The problem is not that they or anyone else happening to pass by ***in that small village in France*** could see him (he certainly wouldn't have sued a passing neighbour), but that Google takes a picture and then goes and ***distributes*** it world-widely for millions of people to see (most of which would never ever come to that small village in France).

        1. Ilsa Loving

          Re: I know

          You make it sound like Google maliciously and deliberately posted the photo just to embarrass him. But the fact of the matter is that this guy is not the first to get caught... err.. out, nor will he be the last. Furthermore, all you have to do is fill out a form and google will revisit the picture and do some further touching up.

          Meanwhile, he's created enough of a stir that he's now the WORLD's laughing stock, never mind just his little village.

          1. The Indomitable Gall

            Re: I know

            " You make it sound like Google maliciously and deliberately posted the photo just to embarrass him.But the fact of the matter is that this guy is not the first to get caught... err.. out, nor will he be the last. "

            No, it's that Google negligently published the picture without any editorial control, despite various similar incidents in the past. Google's business model is "give offerings to the Almighty Algorithm", and is predicated on minimal human intervention. Even if he gets the money he's asked for, Google will continue to do this, and people will continue to be compromised in Google snaps. Because it's making lots of money for Google.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I know

          This is stupid - I don't care where you live if you don't want someone (your neighbor, someone driving by, or the Google street view camera) seeing what you are doing then don't do it where they can see!

          In today's where where just about everyone is carrying a camera (cell phone) the odds are someone is going to capture it and it is going to end up on the internet.

          If you do whip it out for the world to see then make sure you are a "big enough" man to handle it.

      5. Burch

        Re: I know

        I happen to know you're a neighbour, I'll adjust my telescope accordingly and record your every move.

      6. JohnG

        Re: I know

        "That dam Google with their magic wall penetrating street view system,..."

        The Google Streetview cameras take their photos from a vantage point considerably higher than someone walking in the street - some of the complaints, where Streetview has photographed people in their garden behind a 2m wall, don't seem unreasonable. However, the peeing Frenchman appears to be a bit if a chancer.

      7. King Zog the thrid of Albania and Surbiton

        Re: I know

        As Frank Zappa sadly said... "The most common thing in the universe is stupidity"

    2. JDX Gold badge

      Ah yes, closing my garden gate erects a wall of invisibility too. If he was visible to a car with a camera on top, he was visible to anyone in a van or lorry or bus, etc.

      Also - since when is weeing in public a problem in France

    3. Brandon 2

      reasonable expectation?

      If you can be seen by a car on the road with a camera on it... then you can most definitely be seen by pedestrians. Is that your definition of reasonable expectation of privacy?

      Penguin because they would most definitely utilize the garden in such a way...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: reasonable expectation?

        The Google cars were a standard car with a little tripod/tower affair on the roof and cameras on top. Tall as you are; the Google cameras were taller than you. Unless -of course- you are a 7' basketball player on a pogo stick.

        The Google cameras were a lot higher than the average eyeball; and there's no way to plan for that. Well OK there is; but until the G-cams came around, there was no point in guarding against that scenario because there were no tall pogo stick enthusiasts in your village.

        I know for sure that if I had an 'unguarded moment' on my own land when I thought I was in private; and it later turned out that someone with a high-ish camera took a photo and put me on the internet without my permission; I would be unbelievably pissed off. I would require a minimum of:

        The driver to be slapped with a fish of not less than 5 Lb; wielded by a rugby player and with a runup of between 5-6 metres. The fish should not be frozen, because that would be nasty. Nor should it be one of those South American ones with lots of teeth and pointy bits. And nothing from Australia because all the nature is trying to kill you there.

        Whoever thought of it should prostrate themselves in front of every single person in the village on a little rubber mat; apologise massively for the intrusion; And pay the man his 10K. For a data rape of that magnitude; 10K is eminently reasonable. It doesn't even matter what he was doing...look at the angle of the photo (we're looking down on guttering). It was a privacy rape and the rapists should make amends.

        "How can you compare that with rape?", I hear you cry. And you have a point. As far as I know, rape doesn't go on for more than hours and they don't know what you're thinking. Google goes on for life and they do.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: reasonable expectation?

          1 thumbs up & 2 thumbs down

          What? WHAT? Because I used the word rape? The rot started when governments voted themselves the right to read my fucking email. That was quite a while ago; and it seemed to happen everywhere and nobody seemed to notice it.

          It's taking your most personal things -your thoughts- and using them for purposes that are not your own.

        2. ulric

          Re: reasonable expectation?

          a google camera may be higher than a man, but not higher than a man in a van or a bus

          1. Ian Michael Gumby

            Re: reasonable expectation?


            Please pay attention.

            You have a regular sized car with a pod on the roof.

            When the car is taking LIDAR measurements, they are also taking photographs. The instruments when extended are raised above the car. So at 6' your line of sight standing next to the car is at the roof line. The cameras when extended are going to be higher. Let's say 3' higher. Again I don't know because the cars are different in each country and the setups will vary. (I don't think all cars have LIDAR mounted on them. )

            The car's cameras are high enough to peep over privacy walls.

            Not to mention as another poster pointed out that Google posts the photos automatically w little human intervention.

            Could they preprocess the photos to see if there are humans in the shot and then do a manual inspection? Yes, but that would take a large cluster of computers and cost $$$$.

            (and yes I know the rough numbers ... ;-)

            So Google could do more to respect the pivacy.

            Note also that there have been lawsuits in other countries limiting the activities of Googles cars.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      some very very tall people around here

      And if you look at the picture you can tell that the camera was a *lot* higher than any pedestrian you are ever likely to see.

      Not many people have their eyes at roof-height!

      If you weren't there with a step-ladder peering over the wall you would never have seen it - IMHO this is what makes it a privacy violation. If you were in a high vehicle you would have had a fleeting glimpse and that's it - as opposed to taking a picture and publishing it on the net just to sell more adverts.

      But it's OK because it's google and they are doing it to *everyone* so you aren't allowed to object and the don't-care crowd shouts louder anyway.

  5. moonface

    Weeing Frenchman

    I see what you did there!

    If he had his trousers down and was really weeing, was he really peeing?

  6. Steve Foster


    If he's taking a wizz, how could the "gate" be closed?

    (obligatory racial stereotyping) I don't know, these unhygienic Frenchmen. Don't even know how to use trousers properly!

  7. This post has been deleted by its author

  8. Isendel Steel
    Big Brother


    Good name for a big company lawyer

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "gentleman is an awkward customer"?

    Does he run ads on Google? If not then he's not a customer. Nor is he even a user in this case.

    I'd expect a lawyer to know the difference.

    1. stanimir

      Re: "gentleman is an awkward customer"?

      I was going to say: did he pay the google camera's off. And since I am pretty sure he didn't - he aint no customer.

  10. TeeCee Gold badge

    Irony alert!

    "Bigot is arguing that the summons to French court is invalid on the grounds that the site is published by Google US, not Google France."

    So in essence the argument is; "Nothing to do with us, it's those shifty foreign types.". You can where he got his name from.......

  11. Matthew 3

    How close were the pictures to be so embarrassing?

    French guys usually seem happy to carry on chatting mid-pee from those bizarre hides-a-bit-of-you metal shed pissoir things with no sense of shame at all.

    I'm guessing that to actually suffer embarrassment the picture must have been very close up indeed.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How close were the pictures to be so embarrassing?

      From the pictures on the dailymail I would say you can't see anything. In fact it looks like he's got his arms crossed and is just standing in the drive.

      Guess he doesn't need to use both hands like some of us.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. ulric

        Re: How close were the pictures to be so embarrassing?

        I'm assuming the picture we are seeing now has been blurred, while it wasn't before

    2. Jimbo 6

      Re: pissoirs

      One essential difference though, is that pissoirs are actually designed for pissing in, unlike a garden.

      We've all taken a leak somewhere in public, behind a tree or in a shop doorway, if we're nowhere near an available toilet, but you have to be one lazy-ass mo-fo if you *can't be bothered to walk into your own house* to take a slash.

      I imagine his neighbours' mockery is based more on his laziness, than on his violation of the acceptable rules of French behaviour (which I understand to be somewhat more 'relaxed' than those of the average Daily Mail reader).

      Mine's the one with the funnel and plastic tubing in the pocket.

    3. Laurent_Z

      Re: How close were the pictures to be so embarrassing?

      Yeah, the Vespasiennes

      most have been closed, like 99.99%, for years.

      They are now closed structures for 1... Officially...

      and free to use in Paris...

      The Vespasiennes were also known as Pissotieresère

      Try and translate the french examples given for pissotière, explaning the use in a sentence (nsfw... possibly worse with google translate...) and you will understand, possibly, why they were closed...

  12. g e


    Quel surnom!

    1. Alain

      Re: Bigot

      Surnom = nickname

      Nom de famille = surname

  13. Jedit

    Don't look back in Angers...

    ... and you'll end up on Google Street View in compromising circumstances!

    1. Scott Broukell

      Re: Don't look back in Angers...

      Indeed, it could have been worse, he could have been cuffed by a passing officer of the Loire <groan>

      Any self-respecting Frenchman knows pissing in the street is the right thing to do when outside - one thing we share in abundance with our Galic brethren.

  14. Gil Grissum
    Thumb Down

    Do I need to start checking round my front yard for pole mounted cameras? How is this sort of thing legal?

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Legal or not

      But taking a leak in the middle of [your own] courtyard *is* moronic. The man in question is a pig and he deserves to be ridiculed.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Legal or not

        Hold on a minute there. Where I used to live there was only one bathroom and the hot water tank was in a cupboard in my room. I would often get woken up to the sound of running water when someone got up for a shower. This means I awoke with an urgent need to piss (exacerbated by a night on the sauce usually) and an inhabited bathroom. My only option in these circumstances was to leg it behind the shed.

        Admittedly, I did use the back garden.

        1. Miek

          Re: Legal or not

          "an inhabited bathroom" -- You have people living in your bathroom?

          1. Steve Evans

            Re: Legal or not

            Sounds like standard student digs to me!

  15. Velv

    Now we know what The Stig was doing at the side of the A92. Do you think the BBC should sue too?

  16. Beachrider

    Trickle, trickle...

    In the USA, whizzing in view of the street can be prosecuted as public lewdness. It has unfortunate side effects of also-affecting nursing mothers, etc.

    If it is legal and meets local health codes to whiz on your driveway, then this guy did nothing wrong. He just didn't want it on Google.

    It doesn't change the fact that he is NASTY, through.

    1. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: Trickle, trickle...

      It can also get you permanently listed as a sex offender, as a couple local drunk college students discovered.

    2. kain preacher

      Re: Trickle, trickle...

      'It has unfortunate side effects of also-affecting nursing mothers " How since its legal to nurse in public .

      1. Beachrider

        Re: Trickle, trickle...

        Public nursing still has its taboos. Women DO get arrested for it, usually as part of an indecent exposure misdemeanor 'ticket'. The last I heard, public parks and other seemingly public places have rules that cover breastfeeding.

        There are privately-funded legal representation groups that attempt to get these statutes off the books, though. Maybe someday...

        1. kain preacher

          Re: Trickle, trickle...

          40 out 50 states have law that explicitly says breast feeding in public is not illegal. It's legal to do at the federal level. Last time I heard a cop trying to give a women a ticket for that he got reamed out .

          1. Beachrider

            Re: Trickle, trickle...

   says that 45 have such laws, but 5 do not. WV is particularly intolerant. Federal laws override state laws in many, but not all, situations.

    3. M Gale


      So is having a dirty big shit.

  17. jaduncan

    "If his gate was closed and he couldn't be seen by pedestrians, then he would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, IMO."

    This isn't the test under French law merely because it is in US law; you might as well discuss Shariah. The right to one's own image applies in French law, as does the right to have one's dignity preserved. This is an interesting case in that the identity is understandable even though the image of the person is obscured, and means that it could be either an image that denies dignity or an effective news story breaching the right to a private life. French privacy law is really very strong, so discussions of US law have almost no bearing.

    1. kain preacher

      I understand what you mean jaduncan but people on this site are found of quoting UK. law when the article are based in the US

      1. Keep Refrigerated

        US Law

        I'd have thought discussion of US law would be entirely relevant, since y'know, US law now applies to almost every country in the world.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    I wonder why he didn't just go into his house and use the toilet like a normal person...?

    1. Darren Barratt

      Re: Hmm

      How would anyone know it's his car if he hasn't marked it?

  19. Lance S

    Confused by terminology -- to me this guy looks like he is in his driveway or car park area - nothing resembling a "garden". Is this an "across the pond" thing?

  20. Jim Carter

    Clearly, he's taking the piss.

  21. Neill Mitchell

    Just tell them...

    to piss off.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    should have layed off

    le "pee at door".

  23. Armando 123

    Oh noes!

    Get Officer Crabtree on it!

    (Mine's the one that says "Good Moaning" across the back)

  24. Robert E A Harvey


    surely it would have been remarkable if Google got a picture of a french street with no-one pissing in it?

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Google get his wireless lan details while they were at it?

  26. Alan Firminger

    Never mind Google

    This is a better picture of the call :

  27. Herby

    Sounds like

    The problem is "fouling the footpath".

    So what happens when some other animal does it? Inquiring minds want to know and all that...

    Queue remarks about potty humor for the remainder of the day...

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What on earth is "whizzing"?

    Do you all talk American school slang euphemism now? How about "pissing" (happens to be that or similar in most European languages) or "peeing" or "urinating" or even, let's be a little old fashioned, "passing water"?

    Suppose you precious idiots ask for a "bathroom" even when you want just a lavatory/WC/toilet in case someone is too delicate ever to need a WC themselves. Or do you rush off for a rest in the Restroom?

    Anyway, perhaps the man has got a prostate problem and could not wait. It's his garden, of his home and I imagine he was not expecting a camera to be peering over his fence or hedge. After all, if some passing tourist or neighbour had photographed him in such a way and got it published in a newspaper or stuck the picture on the parish noticeboard, even you may have found it objectionable. So why should some large advertising company be allowed to do what it likes?

    . Why should anyone have his or her image in any pose scattered around the world, without permission, by some advertising company for the prurient delight of some passing Reg reader? Privacy? What is that exactly?

    League Against USA colonisation of Language and Culture and loss of personal freedom

    1. Eguro
      Thumb Up

      Re: What on earth is "whizzing"?

      I agree :)

      If anyone takes my picture and expects to use it for anything, then I would most certainly expect them to clear the use of said picture with me. Or _sufficiently_ anonymize the picture.

      Neither of these things happen in this case. The man is surely owed at least his $10k - were it up to me, the penalty would be higher for corporations above a certain budget. Cumulative, you know ...

  29. Paul Renault

    A black bar, à la Borat chasing Azamat,...

    ...'covering' (well, exagerating) his peener's length, and he'd have said "Great Success!!"

  30. QuiteEvilGraham

    So, never heard of the "Streisand Effect"

    So, can we say, pissing in your garden if you have a perfectly good bog indoors is a bit, say, tacky?

    Someone passing by sees you and takes the piss.

    Someone with a camera sees you, posts it on the interwebs, and lots of people take the piss.

    This is something that could have easily been avoided (no pun intended), and down to your own lack of tack. The size of the audience is entirely coincidental. Privacy is dependent on your (and everyone else's) expectation of a private act in a private place. I doubt that that would extent to "in full view of anyone in the street". Having the right to ones image would be a hell of a thing to preserve. You would probably end up with a total prohibition on posessing a camera in a public place.

    OK, lots of "piss" in this comment. No wonder I have a shiny 'S' key :)

  31. Lghost
    Big Brother

    Street view camera height is way above normal ( 2 metre hedge ) height

    Google street view cars have their camera mounted on a tripod/ pole contraption which places the camera at 2.7 metres above road level..or about 8 feet and nine inches above road level for the merkins and the metrically challenged Brits..

    Here in France you need planing permission to build your garden wall ( on modern houses ) higher than 2.00 metres ( about 6 feet 6 inches ) ..this is to stop you building bloody great walls and blocking out the light from your neighbors garden or house windows..and you get flak from the local council if you let your hedge etc obscure their light too most garden walls ( on modern homes at least ) stop at around the 2.00m or 6 feet 6 inch mark..

    This guy was photographed by the street view car..over the top of an 8 foot, dense hedge ( the man, the house, the garden , the hegde, the lawyer etc, were all on French TV here this evening ) running along side the road that runs by his garden.. the street view camera is not at a height that any pedestrian could see things is incredibly intrusive, and in France it is illegal to photograph someone who is not in a public place without their permission ..blurring them after the fact does not give Google or anyone else the ability to flout the law here..

    He was in his own back garden behind his own bloody high dense hedge..he can do what he wants..

    Google have also been in trouble for photographing over the tops of cafe style curtains ( the kind that only cover the lower 3/4 of windows, but that stop people less than 2m tall seeing in ) into peoples houses..and even for photographing into their bedrooms on old houses with low first floors..In Japan they had to lower the cameras to the eye level of an average person or as close as they could get to Japanese average ..had to be under 6 feet IIRC..

    France takes privacy very seriously..a fact which some of you should be grateful for as the CNIL here seem to be the only ones with the balls to tackle Google and Facebook et al over online tracking, privacy etc..

  32. Doug Glass

    Cost of doing business; ...

    ... "peace" on ya Frog.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. fuzzy Dailey Mail pic

    "From the pictures on the dailymail I would say you can't see anything"

    It stands to reason (pardon the pun) that the Daily Mail would possibly want to avoid being slapped with the same lawsuit. Presonally, I don't think the guy is an awkward customer at all (libel as well?): EUR 10k is an entirely reasonable sum in comparison to what it would cost Google in ye olde US of A.

    However, I see a VERY expensive argument being used: "we are not in France, and thus do not have to comply with French laws". If the court accepts that as an argument it would provide Google with a very convenient excuse to do whatever they like. Google has already discovered that this doesn't fly with Streetview, there isn't a judge in France who will let that argument stand - almost regardless of the merits of the case itself.

    As for the case itself, you have a formal right to privacy as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and implementations thereof. A fence above eye height (typically 1.8m and above) is clearly for privacy. Any t*sser standing next to your fence with a periscope is thus willfully infringing your privacy, and so are Google's cameras at the height they operate - and they know this (Switzerland and Japan were first to object). Forget "too big to comply" or "we're foreigners", if fence > 1.8m and data acquired, then breach. Simple.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Re. fuzzy Dailey Mail pic

      Interesting. In the UK you can get in trouble (I think) for being naked in your own garden, if others can see you.

      But anyway - 8foot is significantly higher than normal eye-line, BUT still visible to any lorry driving past and therefore is in 'public view', no?

  34. Lghost

    @Doug Glass

    If that was for me ? ..I'm Irish not French..but live in France..

    Left te UK ( where I had lived for near 30 years ) in 1987 ( after Thatcher and Major had ruined the Uk it looked to be wanting to go down the same path for the next 20..Maybe John Smith could have made it somewhere worth staying..but then he "cough" died "cough" I was time to get out :-)..

    traveled around a few years wound up here..

    It has it's faults..

    But at least it didn't have Blair...and it is waaay less chavvy than the UK...nor is it the de facto aircraft carrier for the US..and it doesn't bend over and hand the lube to Google, Facebook and other US mega corps..

    It reminds me of Britain or Ireland in the late 60's..apart from the large cities ..and large cities are crap in every country ..I know..I've lived in many before arriving here..

  35. Winkypop Silver badge

    Haven't you guys heard of...

    ...slashing your grass?

    mon dieu!

  36. Local Group

    To wee or not to wee?

    No, don't wee. Hold it till you get to a proper loo.

  37. Mark York 3 Silver badge

    Life Imitating Art.

    The Naked Video (IIRC) Spoof Advert with a urinating Frenchmen for

    “The French adore le Piat d'Or”

    No one remember that from the 80's - Ohhhh please yourselves!

  38. Bernard M. Orwell

    I've been waiting for this one to come up...

    ...granted, this isn't quite how I thought it would manifest, but...

    "He is suing Google in a court in Angers for infringement of privacy and use of his image without permission. He wants the photo taken off the site and, naturally, he wouldn't mind about €10,000 in damages as well."

    Tell me now, is the picture of him his intellectual or creative property? What about the garden he's standing in or the way he has painted his house? If it is, then there is a collision here between privacy (non-privacy) laws and IPR, isn't there? If not (and I can hear lotsa people saying "No reasonable expectation of privacy means footage can be taken") then suddenly art galleries, cinema's and theatres have an issue too, don't they? Those are public locations and thus I am free to take pictures and films?

    Even if there is some dubious clause to protect corporate privacy and not private privacy (and I'd hardly be suprised at the existence of such), then I still think its only a matter of time before some company slurps someone's original artistic works and runs afoul of the "artists" IPR.

    If I write a message on gmail to someone, and google slurps it, then surely they are in breach of my intellectual property rights, or is it the case that I have no expectation of privacy in my emails and therefore the content can be legally copied by anyone who wants it?

    Either way, I see exploits.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021