Made me laugh, anyway.
A Greater Manchester mum is "angry, disgusted and upset" after Google flashed her three-year-old son's arse at Street View surfers. Claire Rowlands, 25, told the Manchester Evening News of her horror at discovering the Great Satan of Mountain View's spymobile had grabbed her nipper's backside while he was butt naked in his …
Made me laugh, anyway.
Someone take the kid away from her before we get yet more psychotic nut jobs with no sense of reality.
Alarmingly, I'm going to have to agree with the sentiments of the Daily Fail commentards. If this [freeloading, publicity-seeking, poor excuse of a] parent was so wary of paedo activity she simply wouldn't let her offspring run naked in an area where they could be seen. The cameras on Google's Black Opels are not much taller than a person, so the offending posterior would be clearly visible to anyone passing.
On a slightly different note, why is it perfectly acceptable for a child to flash his (or her) arse in public and I end up with a bloody indecency order for mooning a restaurant! One bloody rule for minors and another for hard-working, tax-paying, fun-seeking citizens!!!
>and I end up with a bloody indecency order
Next time, shave before mooning.
The google stalks *do* look around from a substantially higher viewpoint than humans. In fact, so much so that I wonder why they haven't been taken off the streets /en masse/ for being too long for photographers.
Or do you suppose it reasonable everybody should add a yard to their garden fences' height just because of google?
I want to hear the 'mooning a restaurant' story!
...it appears that anyone of average height would be able to see into their garden whilst wandering past - that the Googlecam was raised higher still doesn't seem to have made the slightest difference here. So yes, I suppose it is reasonable that if people are THAT concerned about their privacy, they ruddy well do something proactive about it, rather than leaving their personal space wide open to public view and then bleating about it afterwards.
... still poses an interesting question.
Previously a fence, even a low one, ment ``this is private space, please don't trespass''. Now, a veritable fleet of cars with eyes on stalks is scouring the world and vacuuming up ``views'' entirely mechanically (the fleshy driver notwithstanding). So there's no voluntary ``looking elsewhere'', that vital social glue, but instead the occasional ``wtf did they scoop up now?''.
The result is that a symbolic fence has lost all meaning, and that if we want to maintain our previous expectation of privacy we now have to wall our gardens high the same way the average arab village does. This is a bit of a shocker for some, evidently. We can call them retrotards or whatever, but there's a real cost here and I'm not even counting the cost of a four metre high brick wall with broken glass on top for good measure. Do we want our suburbs turned into that?
Most of the fellow commentards seem to think it's part and parcel of the cost of modern living. Well, carry on then google.
Ah, but in most parts of the UK (Where this picture was taken), it's actually a legal requirement (Local bylaw, rather than national criminal law) for all fences at the front of a property to be kept below a certain height (Usually around 1 meter) or to be of an open slat design so that you can easily see through them.
You can have higher fences at the sides of properties or at the backs, or you can have a higher hedge, but in a significant portion of the UK it's not permitted to have a front fence that's high enough to have blocked a view of that child from the street by average hight adult.
Even if that fence had been 10 feet high the child would have still been in plain sight for any sex offender with a ladder or in a helicopter, or even one with x-ray vision.
What's that? Common sense? In my Daily Mail? Shocked I am, I tell you.
Kids are kids, they will run around naked, just try stopping them. What is worrying is that some adults consider a naked infant to be an object of sexual desire.
Oh, and the child was at its grandparents, the mother is only at fault for highlighting the incident.
"I would never dream of letting my children run around the front of the house butt naked."
Really? Well I'd never dream of stopping mine form doing that. I trust my neighbors and I know that there are actually very few sex offenders on the streets. Most sexual abuse is committed by close family members or friends of the family. Stranger abuse is quite rare.
You're children are more likely to be molested by the mother's boyfriend/their step father, than by a stranger. So keeping them inside would actually be more dangerous than letting them out as you'd potentially be keeping them in the house with their abuser.
I hope he doesn't grow up to be as retarded as his mother.
If the Mother is so worried about her childs backside being seen who on earth would she let him outside without at least some pants on?? I've got news for her, It's your JOB as a parent to do so.
Why, is there such a culture in the UK at the present of blaming everyone for your own mistakes.
As Father Jack Hackett would say "Arse"..
"Why, is there such a culture in the UK at the present of blaming everyone for your own mistakes.?"
Because years of nanny-state government has removed any sense of responsibility whilst instilling an aggrieved awareness of rights into most of our citizens.
"Everyfink I want should be given to me, 'cos nuffink's my fault, innit?"
It's only a nanny state until it allows something that bothers you (like your ugly self on streetview), then it's stupid tolerance etc. And there's a lack of enforcement until it prevents you from doing what you like, then it's a nanny state.
What is it with childbirth and the transformation of (presumably) otherwise sane people into self-righteous twunts whose sole opening gambit in any debate is "speaking as a parent" and whose specialist subject is "absolutely fucking everything"?
Makes me mad, grinds my gears etc.
Unfortunately, they're susceptible to propaganda from the fear-mongering industry.
Remember, the fear-mongering industry--those of the safety, actuarial and insurance industries--actually make money by preying on the minds of the stupid and gullible--and that includes stupid politicians who aid and abet the industry by compliantly passing laws that benefit it.
Once we had responsibility, now we have fear.
The cry of child pornography, I can hear it now!
While it might not be right, you could pass by any beach on a sunny warm summers day and see the same thing.
If the women is so upset about it, she shouldn't let the kid out with no kecks on!
Just make your child put some damned clothes on!
When will people learn that nakedness is not obscene? What you do with your body is much more important, a stripper can be much more erotic while keeping some clothes on than someone sunbathing on a nudist beach.
This is the sort of brain dead attitude that stops the use of camers at swimming pools and school plays.
I didn't want my house on streetview, so I went through every picture, reported it as offensive with a message saying that I didn't want my house on streetview. 1 week later - all gone.
If everyone did that, two fingers to google.
BTW, get duckduckgo.com as your search engine.
Google stick two fingers up at you.
(Reasoning - they did everything you asked them to without any sort of argument - even though they were perfectly entitled to take and display the photographs)
wrap your house in tinfoil
Wrap your families bums in tin foil!
Why didn't you want your house pictured? What was in those pictures to make you so worried?
Guess what? Now every would be thief that would have not paid a second glance at your house on street view is now wondering the same thing, what has he got to hide?
you seem to have a problem, down here in New Zealand we see things differently.
I don't know anyone who gives a shit about Google and the street view or aerial view .
We just enjoy the view.
Maybe we are not as paranoid as you lot up there are.
Once again the Empire of the Dark One commit a heinous privacy crime with CCTV. Doubtless this family will now be targeted by the paedophile hordes, when will these organisations start to respect privacy.
Astonishing that the usually apposite readers of the Daily Mail can not understand the true depth of depravity commited. Not only will they be able to get the photo, but ip address and MSN login details of this child.
Use of sarcasm = instant downvotes from the hard of thinking
In this day and age of jelly bean touting kerb crawling cctv cameras it is hard not to worry. As a parent I fear for the moral and social health of our young people.
What were the plans for this photo, were the bean flicking overlords going to use it as id for a snatch squad? Who indeed can know, surely not the innocent chavlets of Manchester. An innocent day of fun in the sun turned dark by the ever present oxygen of publicity.
It turns your blood cold, and brings tears to your eyes. Really when oh when are these people going to think of the children.
some people just fuck off
Right... now, just how many millions of images have been taken for StreetView? And you think Google should human-check each one?
I don't think that's so crazy actually, compared to similar demands about YouTube and the like. Google records to pictures in the first place, so it would only maybe double the labor to check them too.
Cracks me up that she was so upset about it she sold her story to the national press had images of her and her child publicised far beyond anything that would ever have been known before
Congratulations for your national press advert to any paedophile that you were supposedly worried about in the first instance.
The simple lesson is that if you don't want something seen then don't show it off!
Do anything in the front garden where everyone can see it and you have no grounds to complain if it gets seen by people
Or alternatively, got a pittance of renumeration, if any, from the Manchester Evening News who then sold it on to The Mail.
"Cracks me up that she was so upset about it she sold her story to the national press had images of her and her child publicised far beyond anything that would ever have been known before"
Absolutely correct. You have to wonder what her real motives are.
Is "spokesoperative" a real job title? :-) Either way, it's a quality made-up word.
As for "we removed the image in question within an hour of being notified" - well, that may well be the case, but this is Google completely missing the point ...again. The problem is that (for example), as far as I know there could be a picture on streetview with me in it that I would rather wasn't there. But how would I know? I never use street view, but just because I don't use it, it doesn't mean that I don't care about my picture being posted on it. Even if I DID use it, I may never actually find the picture(s) of me. Or I might find them within 10 minutes. How would I know?
For me, that is the problem with streetview. An individual has no idea what, if any, pictures of them are up on there. Short of checking out every single picture, how can they?
Anyone in the whole world could have a picture of you, taken in a public place, without your permission. And it would be perfectly legal. You wouldn't know about it, and it has done you no harm.
I have dozens of pictures taken in the public street, with many faces in them. I have no idea who they are, they have no idea the picture was taken. I could post them on Flikr or anywhere on the net, and I would be perfectly within my rights to do so.
Why is Google any different? In fact Google are providing a service to have images pixelated or removed upon request, I don't think they even need to do that.
Seen one of those? Car driving round, great big camera on top... No?
You're probably not on Street View then... Panic averted...
But why does it matter if there is a picture of you on Streetview?
I really don't understand why people would not want to appear in a street they were walking down where people could see them with their own eyes anyway. It's not as if it's a permanent video feed that tracks where you are every minute of everyday. It's just a picture taken as some indeterminate time in the past.
The solution is not to do anything *in public* that you wouldn't want photoed. Because that way it won't happen. Google don't have a monopoly on cameras...
I have sympathy for those who don't want e.g. intrusive photos of their home taken over their fence - but as others have said you can remove those. Streetview can be useful on occasions (often to try to work out whether google maps' addresses are anything like reality)
And nor do I have any idea of how many photo's I appear in on Flickr, or another image storage site, and neither do I have any idea who woman with the big norks in the back ground of one of my Florida holiday snaps.
I don't believe Mail-commentards are capable of using "you're" correctly. Have you edited those?
A million monkeys with a million typewriters comes to mind...
Why isn't this woman being prosecuted for allowing her underage son to have buttock in the first place?!?!?
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure having buttock[s] isn't yet a crime.... regardless of age... I believe I was issued with my buttock[s] at birth, as are most others, which is my understanding... Therefore the issue of allowing her underage son to have buttock[s] seems somewhat moot...
Wouldn't you agree?
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds