日本谷歌贏網上私隱官司

Recently the Yomiuri News reported the following:

インターネットで街並みの画像を閲覧できる検索大手「グーグル」のサービス「ストリートビュー」（ＳＶ）に、ベランダに干した下着の画像が公開され、プライバシーを侵害されたとして、福岡県内の２０歳代の女性が、同社日本法人（東京都）に６０万円の損害賠償を求めた訴訟の控訴審判決が１３日、福岡高裁であった。

　木村元昭裁判長は「画像ではベランダにある物が何か判然とせず、プライバシー侵害があったとは認められない」と述べ、原告敗訴の１審・福岡地裁判決を支持し、女性の控訴を棄却した。

　判決は、画像について「下着を干していることまではわからず、表札や看板など個人名などがわかるものも映っていない」と指摘。そのうえで「ベランダに焦点を当てて撮影、公開しておらず、私生活の平穏が侵害されたとは認められない」と結論付けた。

　女性の弁護団によると、ＳＶの画像を巡る全国初の損害賠償請求訴訟。ＳＶは２００８年８月に日本で導入された後、プライバシー侵害との批判も出ていた。

（2012年7月13日18時30分 読売新聞）

(試譯文)

Regarding a picture which showed that some underwear were being dried in the veranda had been made public in the "Street View" (SV) service of the major search company "Google" which could browse the picture of rows of houses on the Internet, a woman in her twenties living in Fukuoka asked this company's affiliate in Japan (Tokyo) for 600,000 yen reparations for infringement of privacy; an appeal court judgment on this lawsuit was made by the Fukuoka High Court on the 13^th (July).

Presiding Judge Motoaki Kimura said that "In the picture, the thing on a veranda is something not in focus, and as such they could not accepted that an invasion of privacy had occurred"; he supported the first hearing’ judgment at the Fukuoka District Court that the plaintiff had lost the case and rejected the woman’s appeal.

The court's judgment indicated that about the picture, "Nothing more could be understood beyond that it is drying some underwear; things that could show personal names, such as a doorplate and a signboard etc. were not shown." Also, it was concluded that "even if the photo is taking a focus on the veranda; and if it is not open to the public, it could not be admitted that it has infringed the peaceful enjoyment of private life".

According to the woman’s defense counsel, this was the first damage case in the whole country that involved the pictures of SV. After SV was introduced in August 2008 in Japan, criticism about invasion of privacy had started to come out.

I think the court decision is logical and sensible. It has maintained a right balance between an individual’s privacy right and Google’s right to disseminate information in the Internet.