Google Street View Helps Find Kidnapped Child

from the well-who-woulda-thunk? dept

Thu, Jan 8th 2009 1:36am — Kevin Donovan

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: google maps, kidnapped children, street view

40 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Some IT Guy, 8 Jan 2009 @ 4:34am
  
  Re:
  Amen John Doe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liam, 8 Jan 2009 @ 4:40am
  
  Re:
  What about the Terminator?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger, 8 Jan 2009 @ 5:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that was proven when it was reprogrammed to be good, note the second and third movie.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Sean, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Does that mean "good" sucks? Cuz that third movie was a turd burger.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - shmengie, 8 Jan 2009 @ 7:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      @Lonnie E. Holder: Dude, the Terminators were designed by Skynet, not people.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lonnie E. Holder, 8 Jan 2009 @ 12:21pm
        
        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...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BTR1701, 9 Jan 2009 @ 10:00am
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Liam, 12 Jan 2009 @ 3:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Terminator
        Thanks for the backup :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lonnie E. Holder, 8 Jan 2009 @ 5:09am
  
  Re:
  John Doe:
  
  Darn, you beat me to it. Precisely what I was going to say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 5:30am
  
  Re:
  Congratulations on repeating the last sentence of the article. You sir are very insightful indeed...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 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'
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 7:57am
      
      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?!?!?!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Fsmm, 8 Jan 2009 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        @23:
        
        Ooooooold internet joke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Your Momma Cares, 8 Jan 2009 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...says the guy who lost.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:34am
  
  Re:
  And people with guns kill way more people than people without...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    and people with guns kill other people with guns way more than that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PJ, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:54pm
  
  Re:
  No actually, guns kill that's what they are made for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mslade, 8 Jan 2009 @ 6:33am

Google should sue the cop
..for patent infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2009 @ 12:14pm

i am jobe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2009 @ 12:17pm

raise the roof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2009 @ 12:28pm

i love this website, but i am not an Anonymous Coward!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DANIEL STALKER!!!!, 17 Jan 2009 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  u cant just call somebody an anonymous coward if they do not put their name in!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]