RSS
Twitter
Google Street View Helps Find Kidnapped Child
from the well-who-woulda-thunk? dept
You may remember that a couple months ago an advocacy group was trying to whip up a storm about Google's Street View service. The claim alleged that child predators would use Street View to find where children live and then kidnap them. Well, it turns out that Street View did assist with a kidnapping.
Only, not as the worriers predicted.
Instead, a smart cop was able to use Street View to help relocate a kidnapped child. In fact, in conjunction with the GPS data for the child's phone, provided by the cellular provider, the officer was able to use Street View to remotely find what he thought may be a motel in Virginia. Furthering Googling confirmed Street View and local police were able to find the child. Obviously, stories like this will be far and few between -- but so will ones where bad guys use technology in an evil way. That's the reality: technology can be good or bad, it depends on the user. Luckily, in this case, we had a clever cop using technology for the best.
Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Just a small clarification here. Technology, like anything else, is not good or bad. It is the use of it that is good or bad. And who or what uses technology? People. Just like guns don't kill people; people kill people.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Amen John Doe.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
What about the Terminator?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Liam:
What about the Terminator? The Terminator was designed by people to be a killing machine. The technology was not "bad," but the intent designed into the technology initially by people could be characterized as bad.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
And that was proven when it was reprogrammed to be good, note the second and third movie.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does that mean "good" sucks? Cuz that third movie was a turd burger.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
@Lonnie E. Holder: Dude, the Terminators were designed by Skynet, not people.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
shmengie:
Okay, that is more precise. However, humans designed Skynet, and Skynet became sentient and programmed the Terminators to do harm to humans...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Terminator
> The Terminator was designed by people to
> be a killing machine.
Actually, in the film, the Terminator was not designed by people. It was designed by a self-aware AI system who saw people as a threat to its existence.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Terminator
Thanks for the backup :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
John Doe:
Darn, you beat me to it. Precisely what I was going to say.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Congratulations on repeating the last sentence of the article. You sir are very insightful indeed...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I am sorry your reading comprehension is not up to the task here. There is a subtle difference in what the article says and what I say. The article says that technology can be either good or bad depending on the user. What I said is that technology is agnostic, it is solely the user that is good or bad. Does that clear it up for you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Save you anal semantics for where they are actually needed please.
The two say the same thing.
The OP states that "Technology can be good or bad"
not that it is inherently either one or the other.
Cant you simply state that's its nice to see a kidnapped child rescued through the use of modern technology without trying to impress us all with your obviously superior grammar skills?
Please...
BTW It sure is nice to see a kidnapped child rescued through the use of what I personally consider to be "Good" technology.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You got yourself into this discussion so here goes one more try. As you quote, the OP says technology can be good or bad. Technology cannot be good or bad, only indifferent. It's use is what is good or bad. So I was only clearing up a subtle difference. Then you jumped in to congratulate me on repeating the OP, which I clearly did not.
So please follow your own advice next time and simply state that it is nice to see a kidnapped child rescued. That would be much better than making snide comments that turn out to be wrong and then getting huffy about it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By saying technology can be good or bad is just an informal way of saying its agnostic and the it depends on the user (which the original article states). So thanks for clearing up what everyone knew the original article meant but didn't need to waste time on.
The guy arguing with you was just pointing out your nitpicking and that most intelligent individuals would infer the same meaning as what you think the 'correct meaning' is. Only idiots and anal retentive folks would say there's a difference.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, everyone is coming out of the woodwork for this one. You do realize that when you resort to name calling you have already lost the argument?
Please read my OP, I was not derogatory in any way. But hey, if you feel I dissed your hero, I am sorry.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
"Congratulations on repeating the last sentence of the article. You sir are very insightful indeed..."
Since when did he repeat "Luckily, in this case, we had a clever cop using technology for the best."?
You get an 'F'
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Fighting on a message board is like running in the special olympics. Sure, you may win, but at the end of the day you are still a retard.
WHO CARES?!?!?!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
@23:
Ooooooold internet joke.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...says the guy who lost.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
And people with guns kill way more people than people without...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
and people with guns kill other people with guns way more than that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Only when those people have bad intentions just like commercial jets in the hands of evil doers! On balance cars appear to be killing more people than guns come close to though.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
And people with knives kill way more people than people without.
And people with nuclear arsenals kill way more people than people without.
That's why we should ban everything dangerous including those treacherous pointy pencils.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"technology can be good or bad, it depends on the user."
"Technology, like anything else, is not good or bad. It is the use of it that is good or bad."
Perhaps the article could have read, "technology can used for good or bad," but to quote an oft-used phrase, I think a moron in a hurry would see no difference in the two statements.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
No actually, guns kill that's what they are made for.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yay
I always enjoy hearing about stories like this where technology was used for something great. A good kick in the pants of all those fear mongerers and nay-sayers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google should sue the cop
..for patent infringement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"...that's the reality: technology can be good or bad..."
No, technology is just a tool, there's no such thing as bad (that is, evil) tech. It's the user that is good or bad.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's like every other tool in the world. By its self it is useless and harmless. It's only in somones hands when it can be used and it's that some one who will deside how it will be used....good or bad...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Two points, of course people with guns kill people way more than without.... thats why you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Second. If the cop had the GPS info from the cell phone, why didn't he just put the info into a GPS unit and drive there?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Second. If the cop had the GPS info from the cell phone, why didn't he just put the info into a GPS unit and drive there?
Because googling the location and casing it online takes a lot less time (and gas) than driving from Massachusetts to Virginia on a hunch.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Few and far between
Should be "few and far between", not "far and few between". Meaning there are few cases, and it's far between them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
An interesting article about bad guys and technology used for nefarious purposes (minus one):
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/capers.html
interesting reading!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Terminators
ACTUALLY:
Terminators are a fictional idea created by the writers of the series and therefore are designed by people since SkyNet is fictional as well.
wrap your mind around that one.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i am jobe
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
raise the roof
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i love this website, but i am not an Anonymous Coward!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
u cant just call somebody an anonymous coward if they do not put their name in!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment