He was naked at home and the Google car took his picture: now they must compensate him

Would you feel safe knowing your backyard could appear on Google Maps without your permission? And what if you were naked at the time? What's a useful navigation tool for some has become a silent threat to their privacy for others.

The Argentine court has convicted Google in an unusual but revealing case. A man was photographed completely naked in his backyard by a Street View camera. The image spread, went viral , and ultimately led to a court ruling that could set a global precedent.

The story begins in 2017, when a Google Street View vehicle drove through the streets of a residential neighborhood in the province of Buenos Aires. In one of the shots, it captured, from a public street, an image of a man from behind , completely naked, in the front yard of his house. This wasn't a street scene or a public space. It was the interior of a private property, partially visible from the outside.

What seemed like a quaint anecdote went viral. The image, reproduced by a local media outlet as a curiosity, was shared on social media and even reached television channels. The subject of the image, a police officer, began to suffer jokes , harassment, and questions about his professionalism. The impact was such that he decided to take legal action against Google and the media outlets involved.

The Argentine court ruled in his favor. The judgment, issued on May 29, 2024, by the National Court of Civil Appeals , requires Google to compensate the plaintiff with 3 million pesos plus legal costs. The key to the ruling lay not only in the viralization of the image, but in the very nature of the service that captured it.

Street View was born as an innovation within Google Maps in 2007. Since then, it has been used by millions of people to explore streets, plan routes, search for businesses, or simply virtually tour the world . However, from the outset, privacy experts warned about its intrusive potential.

Although Google has implemented automatic face and license plate blurring mechanisms and offers the option to request censorship of specific images, the tool still operates with a wide margin of discretion. In many cases, the image capture fails to distinguish between public and private spaces if the latter is visible from the street.

Google defended itself in this case by claiming that the image was out of focus , that the face was not visible, and that the user had not taken the necessary measures to preserve their privacy. The company argued that the patio wall was not high enough and that it could therefore not be held responsible for the situation.

The court, however, interpreted the opposite. It applied the concept of "risky activity" contained in the Argentine Civil and Commercial Code, which does not require proof of fault but simply evidence of the resulting damage. And in this case, the damage was tangible: reputational, family, and professional.

The key to the ruling lies in the modern interpretation of the right to privacy. As Carolina Martínez Elebi, a digital rights expert, explained, a home's backyard is a space where people expect reasonable privacy. It's not necessary to be within four walls for that right to exist.

Furthermore, this case triggered a series of highly personal rights recognized by the Argentine Constitution and international treaties: privacy, honor, image, and protection of personal data. According to attorney Lucas Barreiro, the fact that the image is blurred does not prevent the person from being identifiable, especially if the environment or context reveals this.

Google's "non-identification" argument collapses in the face of the reality of social media . On the internet, an image doesn't need to be perfectly sharp to cause harm. All it takes is for someone—a neighbor, an acquaintance, a family member—to recognize it for the ripple effect to begin.

This is not an isolated case. In 2009, a woman in Canada sued Google for appearing topless in her garden. In 2012, the Swiss Supreme Court ordered the removal of sensitive images in areas near schools and hospitals. In 2022, in the United States, Google was accused of violating the Biometric Privacy Act. All these cases have one thing in common: the blurred lines between what belongs to everyone and what remains solely ours.

Street View works with an automated mass-capture system. Cars drive through streets without discriminating between situations. The images, even if filtered, can include private moments captured in milliseconds. And although correction tools exist, they are often unknown to or unused by users.

The ruling in Argentina, therefore, isn't just aimed at the company. It's also a wake-up call about how we use and understand technology. Are we aware that by stepping outside, we could end up in a global database?

The Argentine case challenges the idea that technology is neutral. Google offers a useful service, yes. But like any advancement, it brings with it unintended consequences. And when these consequences affect people's lives, the balance between usefulness and responsibility is disrupted.

This ruling sets an important precedent because it holds big tech companies accountable, even for automated actions.