Sign Up for THE DAILY JUDGED VERDICT. Our daily newsletter covers law firm salaries and everything you want to know about changes affecting law firms from people in the know. Sign Up Now!
9.00
9.00
8.69
8.40
8.33
8.25
8.13
8.03
8.00
8.00
2.70
2.86
3.09
3.12
3.12
3.30
3.35
3.46
3.47
3.65
The Judge has grown weary of sulking in the shadows and letting the MeJDs and Chinaskis of Judged hog the limelight. Here you will find news about Judged, updates to our law firm rankings and the Judge’s daily ramblings. Want the real scoop? Check it out here.
The Judge has grown weary of sulking in the shadows and letting the MeJDs and Chinaskis of Judged hog the limelight. Here you will find news about Judged, updates to our law firm rankings and the Judge’s daily ramblings. Want the real scoop? Check it out here.
Gender: Female
Industry: Law
Age: Unknown
Location: Undisclosed
Judged Blog
''That Thing Would've Been Shot Full of Holes''
That's the sentiment of one observer when this week's trial involving Google’s ''Street View'' cameras. The suit, filed by a Pennsylvania couple, claimed that the family's privacy had been invaded when one of the contractors captured images of their home in 2008 and then placed it online as part of Google's map services.
The ruling, which can be seen heres, came as Google agreed to a consent judgment with the couple, Aaron and Christine Boring. It was signed off by Judge Cathy Bissom this past week and awarded the couple one dollar. The couple's attorney, Gregg Zegarelli, said his clients feel vindicated and hope this win will result in more private citizens coming forward with their own demands of taking photos of their homes, lawns and in some instances, family members, off the internet giant's map service. He says his clients were never interested in monetary gain.
The crux of the case revolved around a ''private road'' sign the plaintiffs said the driver ignored. And it's what resulted in their win, albeit a small one.
The suit accused Google of ''intentional and/or grossly reckless invasion of privacy''. Google fought the case and actually managed to get most of the claims in the lawsuit dismissed. All that was left to challenge was the trespassing charges. The photos in question have been down since the suit was filed in 2008.
As with all things related to Google, the public is split. One observer said, ''It's a good thing I didn't catch that car down my road. That thing would've been shot full of holes''. Another insisted he was able to get more from the Borings' county tax records, which are also available online. The only thing he wasn't able to discover through the government site was images of the family pool. Still another observer commented by saying ''Welcome to the future''.
This, of course, does lead the way, as the plaintiff attorney suggested, for other private citizens to demand photos of their homes removed. The debate has officially begun: invasion of privacy or just the way a technologically advanced society now lives?
12-04-2010
The ruling, which can be seen heres, came as Google agreed to a consent judgment with the couple, Aaron and Christine Boring. It was signed off by Judge Cathy Bissom this past week and awarded the couple one dollar. The couple's attorney, Gregg Zegarelli, said his clients feel vindicated and hope this win will result in more private citizens coming forward with their own demands of taking photos of their homes, lawns and in some instances, family members, off the internet giant's map service. He says his clients were never interested in monetary gain.
The crux of the case revolved around a ''private road'' sign the plaintiffs said the driver ignored. And it's what resulted in their win, albeit a small one.
The suit accused Google of ''intentional and/or grossly reckless invasion of privacy''. Google fought the case and actually managed to get most of the claims in the lawsuit dismissed. All that was left to challenge was the trespassing charges. The photos in question have been down since the suit was filed in 2008.
As with all things related to Google, the public is split. One observer said, ''It's a good thing I didn't catch that car down my road. That thing would've been shot full of holes''. Another insisted he was able to get more from the Borings' county tax records, which are also available online. The only thing he wasn't able to discover through the government site was images of the family pool. Still another observer commented by saying ''Welcome to the future''.
This, of course, does lead the way, as the plaintiff attorney suggested, for other private citizens to demand photos of their homes removed. The debate has officially begun: invasion of privacy or just the way a technologically advanced society now lives?
Top Performing Jobs
USA-TX-Dallas
Galloway\'s Dallas office is seeking an Associate Attorneys with 2 - 5 years of ...
Apply NowUSA-CA-Santa Ana
Part-time Staff Attorney – Housing and Homelessness Preven...
Apply NowUSA-CA-Santa Ana
Full-time Staff Attorney – Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit Org...
Apply NowUSA-CA-El Segundo
El Segundo office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an educatio...
Apply NowUSA-CA-Carlsbad
Carlsbad office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an education ...
Apply NowUSA-CA-El Segundo
El Segundo office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an educatio...
Apply NowDo you ever experience any physical danger in the courtroom? You do deal with all those criminals, right?
Sincerly,
Concerned Bailiff's Mommy
+ more Judged Dear
+ write to Your Honor
The Attorney Profile column is sponsored by LawCrossing, America`s leading legal job site.
Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now! |