• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Street View Photographs Your Naked Kids

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A woman is upset with Google after one of the Street View cars captured an image of her naked kid running around the front yard. Wait, what?!?

Shocked Claire, who lives on the same road as her mother, said she had no idea the pictures had been taken and accused Google of invading her son's privacy.
Click to expand...
 
Does she actually think that google is actively trying to capture pictures of naked kids? How about telling your son to put on some damn clothing and to stop exposing himself in public.
 
We don't want to see your naked son when we're trying to figure something out on StreetView either. Put some fucking clothes on him. No excuse for your kid to be running around nekkid right next to a public street.
 
I was walking my dog yesterday and some jackass in his boxers and a butt naked 6 year old kid were just hanging out around a fire pit in their yard. What the hell is up with these people :)
 
Do you all HAVE any kids?

Toddlers are IMPOSSIBLE to keep dressed. I can understand how the kid was naked in the front yard.

I just think shes a fucking idiot for complaining so loudly about the whole incident. ;)
 
I like this article. The woman proudly shows off her lack of any intelligence. It is not invasion of privacy is it is out in full public view/
 
Lady, you live in England, you have no privacy. Government cameras have a full Blu-ray library of your son's naked upbringing.
 
Yesterday maybe 10 people in the world knew about this. Today the whole world knows about it. Good job reporting this to the media, mom. Your son will thank you some day when his classmates find out that it was him.
 
I can understand why she might want this blurred or removed, and to be honest I think she has every right to expect google to do something about it, and I'd be very surprised if they simply denied any reasonable request from her.

But this cannot be used as an anti-streetview whine, I mean your kid is out in the yard naked, anyone casually walking past is going to see them naked, if you don't want that then dont let your kid in the yard without any clothes on, this isn't very complicated.
 
AdamNesvick said:
Do you all HAVE any kids?

Toddlers are IMPOSSIBLE to keep dressed. I can understand how the kid was naked in the front yard.

I just think shes a fucking idiot for complaining so loudly about the whole incident. ;)
Click to expand...
That wasn't a toddler, that was a 3 year old! I wonder how many brown vans were on that street that day.
 
they should be checking every image before it goes up
Click to expand...
This is where I cracked up.

Then...
It's such a clear image, I see it as an indecent photograph
Click to expand...
It's indecent on the internet, but not LIVE and in public?

I got no problem with naked kids running around and having fun, though, that's what kids DO.
 
AdamNesvick said:
Do you all HAVE any kids?

Toddlers are IMPOSSIBLE to keep dressed. I can understand how the kid was naked in the front yard.

I just think shes a fucking idiot for complaining so loudly about the whole incident. ;)
Click to expand...

Then expect some guy from Pittsburgh called BOB, to be whacking off to photos of your kid.

It's not impossible to keep kids dressed, but it is impossible to get parents to watch them. It seems parents today need a lot of "ME TIME".
 
martinmsj said:
I like this article. The woman proudly shows off her lack of any intelligence. It is not invasion of privacy is it is out in full public view/
Click to expand...

No? Then how about child pornography to post pictures up of naked minors? I am fairly certain that is against the law in most nations these days.
 
am I the only one who didnt click the link due to a general disinterest in seeing a naked kid?

anyway, kids do this all the time, all the parent can do is chase them and try to get some gear on them. later will come modesty/shame but right now there is none of that.
 
NoOther said:
No? Then how about child pornography to post pictures up of naked minors? I am fairly certain that is against the law in most nations these days.
Click to expand...

it. was. not. intentional.
 
NoOther said:
No? Then how about child pornography to post pictures up of naked minors? I am fairly certain that is against the law in most nations these days.
Click to expand...

You are allowed to take and post all the naked photos you want of kids, as long as the photos are not of a sexual nature. How the hell do you think the naked bathtub pictures of kids are legal? There was nothing illegal at all about those photos being taken, at least not in the united states, I'm unsure about the United Kingdom


I'm angry, disgusted and upset about it - they should be checking every image before it goes up.
Click to expand...

hahaha, every image? really?
 
I think we (the people of the internet) should sue for indecent exposure. Afterall, it's not so different from this.

/sarcasm
 
Azhar said:
it. was. not. intentional.
Click to expand...

Intent does not matter, all pictures should be reviewed before posting them ON THE INTERNET. If they had unintentionally taken the picture and then reviewed it and not posted it up, that would be fine. I know someone who unintentionally received child pornography from a news distribution agent. He still was found guilty for having and distributing it since it ended up on the list, even though as soon as he discovered it, it was removed. It was never his intent to receive, store, or distribute such media, but it happened.

Intention is not enough to acquit someone. Remember the path to hell is paved by good intentions.
 
NoOther said:
Intent does not matter, all pictures should be reviewed before posting them ON THE INTERNET. If they had unintentionally taken the picture and then reviewed it and not posted it up, that would be fine. I know someone who unintentionally received child pornography from a news distribution agent. He still was found guilty for having and distributing it since it ended up on the list, even though as soon as he discovered it, it was removed. It was never his intent to receive, store, or distribute such media, but it happened.

Intention is not enough to acquit someone. Remember the path to hell is paved by good intentions.
Click to expand...

Viacom, is that you?
 
I'm angry, disgusted and upset about it - they should be checking every image before it goes up.
Click to expand...

tubular said:
hahaha, every image? really?
Click to expand...

Why not? Google transports the camera. Google takes the pictures. Google uploads the picture to their servers. Google hosts the images. Google directs you to the picture.

Since Google's involved in every single step of the process, they should be responsible?

If you asked me how to get to the mall, and in response I came up to you and pulled out of my wallet a picture I took with my own camera a picture I took of some naked child and stuck it in your face and forced you to look at it, wouldn't you find that in the least bit creepy?

Quite some time ago I believe Google agreed to blur faces, even trying some automated system. Why not blur naked kids?

If you agree to blur faces but not pee-pees (especially a child's?) then your search engine should be called Pedogle or Meatview?
 
NoOther said:
Intent does not matter, all pictures should be reviewed before posting them ON THE INTERNET. If they had unintentionally taken the picture and then reviewed it and not posted it up, that would be fine. I know someone who unintentionally received child pornography from a news distribution agent. He still was found guilty for having and distributing it since it ended up on the list, even though as soon as he discovered it, it was removed. It was never his intent to receive, store, or distribute such media, but it happened.

Intention is not enough to acquit someone. Remember the path to hell is paved by good intentions.
Click to expand...

That is all fine and good, but the picture in question is not pornographic.
 
It definitely isnt pornographic. They are the parents letting their kid walk around outside butt ass naked. Its not like the Google van intentionally took pics of a naked kid.
 
AdamNesvick said:
I just think shes a fucking idiot for complaining so loudly about the whole incident. ;)
Click to expand...
Streisand effect for pedos. :mad:

It's possible to have an image removed, but the option is buried in a non-obvious spot: "report a problem" low contrast link near copyright notice, which opens a POPUP window in certain browsers :p. It used to be much worse, but google definitely doesn't want to make it easy to remove images for privacy reasons. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/want_off_street/
 
If you asked me how to get to the mall, and in response I came up to you and pulled out of my wallet a picture I took with my own camera a picture I took of some naked child and stuck it in your face and forced you to look at it, wouldn't you find that in the least bit creepy?
Click to expand...

Creepy yes...illegal/criminal not so much.
 
The image was immediately removed. Dry your tears of outrage. If you are so concerned about your child being seen in public naked, but not so much to actually put clothes on him, hold a sheet of plexiglass in front of him and wiggle it to simulate the "blurred censor" look. ;)
 
AdamNesvick said:
Do you all HAVE any kids?

Toddlers are IMPOSSIBLE to keep dressed. I can understand how the kid was naked in the front yard.

I just think shes a fucking idiot for complaining so loudly about the whole incident. ;)
Click to expand...

Duct tape. About half of a roll should do it.
 
Decibel said:
Duct tape. About half of a roll should do it.
Click to expand...

If you have 1 todler :D

I had 2 at one time :D but they are now 10 and 8, like the previous posts, keeping clothes on todlers is impossible, even with an entire roll of duct tape... :D

The image is nothing but a butt naked kid walking around.. who care's, nothing sexual was in the making of that picture.

You up tight people need to have a chill pill... maybe a whole bottle. ;)
 
pedobear_approved_large.png
 
Oh, I suspect that's just step one of their master plan...

Azhar said:
Yesterday maybe 10 people in the world knew about this. Today the whole world knows about it. Good job reporting this to the media, mom. Your son will thank you some day when his classmates find out that it was him.
Click to expand...
 
Lol, ain't that the truth. I have to keep my doors dead bolted, because the first thing my 18 month old does every timeI put him down is run over to the front door open it and say "doggies outside" and let them run out into the front yard, then he chases them around. He does this too if I am changing him and I let him go, he'll get up and sprint over to the door, let himself and the dogs out while naked. You never heard a kid laugh so much when he's doing it, lol.
 
Having raised two daughters myself I just have two things to say:

1.) Google should have censored the picture, or retaken it...

2.) BUT if the woman was so worried about her son being seen naked in public, then WHY was the kid running around naked in public? There are obviously other adults in the picture, so if it wasn't by consent why was no one doing anything about it? She exercised no concern, but is "sickened" that Google would do the same. Sorry, but mom needs to do some growing up too it seems.
 
If you can't dress them, don't let them out. How hard is that? Seriously... if you can't keep them clothed... don't have children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top