Google nabs purse snatcher Google's Latitude service proved an unwitting aid to police tracing a stolen purse in San Francisco, guiding the boys in blue to the miscreants in moments. The story comes from local-TV channel CBS-5, and relates the story of one Janina Valiente, who had her bag snatched while waiting for a bus. The woman realised that Google' …
We shouldn't all be installing Latitude, relying on a commercial entity for an otherwise builtin service, we should be putting the screws on the mobile operators to stop charging the police for fighting crime!!!!!
IMHO mobile operators who charge the police for information which asssits in crime prevention or fighting should be charged with perverting the course of justice, obstruction of the police and aiding and abetting criminals.
good job Google.... but keeping gmaps in the background causes high data usage and battery in google latitude. Moreover if the gmaps is not open it cannot use the Latitude location sharing.
better option to track stolen mobiles would be a software like roblock from http://www.vapssky.com/Roblock.aspx
Actually in this aspect network based tracking would have been pretty useless as it only works to a Cell level which is about 500m in urban environments, telling the police that a thief is somewhere within a couple of blocks in useless, Latitude here must have used the GPS in the device giving a much better granularity.
So the moral of this tale is if you steal a bag head for the tube quick!
>>She was able to see the thieves progress to a nearby junction, where police apprehended them
Just to be clear: "she" is the sister, not the victim, and by "see" you mean "track their location on google maps", not actually use any ocular faculties to interpret the reflected light from the offenders.
It's the same with those damn garages that charge the police to repair their cars and maintain them. They should have to maintain and repair police vehicles at any time for free. Even better, if the police need a car to investigate a crime or pursue criminals then they should be able to commandeer one from any member of the public as needed. I'm sure you'd be happy for your car to be commandeered; I know I would because I'm a good citizen who has a sense of duty, just like you.
Let me get this right, I'm supposed to think after this bit of marketing that it's OK to make it even easier to track me than it already is?
1 - There is as yet NO statement of what Data Protection laws Google operates under. I said LAW, not "promises on a web page that can change every second". AFAIK it all gets exported to the good ol' we-fight-for-your-freedom-as-long-as-we-can-take-it-away US of A, a la Menwith Hill. Anyone using Gmail should be made to use postcards when writing letters as well.
2 - The gaping hole in Data Protection laws mean that if I GIVE information they don't have to state what they're going to use it for. Sorry, there are already enough telco's too creative and "flexible" (hello BT, how is Phorm going? Got any nice EU letters of late?).
3 - I'm OK with the operators charging the boys in blue for access. That appears to be offer better barriers and pause for thought than any laws appear to have, especially with the current people in charge at the Home Office (yes Jacqui, that means you).
I already coach people in high grade security that a meeting with any cellphones in the vicinity should not be considered secure - even when they're off. There's a reason why visitors to No 10 and certain Millbank offices have to leave anything electronic in a metal box until they leave. At least they learned *something* from their contacts with the US.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
