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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    John Doe, 8 Jan 2009 @ 4:08am

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Some IT Guy, 8 Jan 2009 @ 4:34am

      Re:

      Amen John Doe.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Liam, 8 Jan 2009 @ 4:40am

      Re:

      What about the Terminator?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Lonnie E. Holder, 8 Jan 2009 @ 5:11am

        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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lonnie E. Holder, 8 Jan 2009 @ 5:09am

      Re:

      John Doe:

      Darn, you beat me to it. Precisely what I was going to say.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 5:30am

      Re:

      Congratulations on repeating the last sentence of the article. You sir are very insightful indeed...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        John Doe, 8 Jan 2009 @ 5:55am

        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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Please, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:36am

          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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            John Doe, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:52am

            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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 7:04am

              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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                John Doe, 8 Jan 2009 @ 7:51am

                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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 7:31am

        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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Greg, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:34am

      Re:

      And people with guns kill way more people than people without...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:49am

        Re: Re:

        and people with guns kill other people with guns way more than that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 7:29am

        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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 8:46am

        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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Sean, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:38am

      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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PJ, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:54pm

      Re:

      No actually, guns kill that's what they are made for.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:01am

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mslade, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:33am

    Google should sue the cop

    ..for patent infringement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 7:56am

    "...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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    You never know, 8 Jan 2009 @ 8:11am

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 8:28am

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Nismoto, 8 Jan 2009 @ 8:50am

      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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    nasch, 8 Jan 2009 @ 11:04am

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    cp, 8 Jan 2009 @ 1:10pm

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Re: Re: 's, 9 Jan 2009 @ 6:26pm

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2009 @ 12:14pm

    i am jobe

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2009 @ 12:17pm

    raise the roof

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2009 @ 12:28pm

    i love this website, but i am not an Anonymous Coward!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.