Buttnote
Made me laugh, anyway.
Nipper's naked arse provokes Street View outrage
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 …
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 9th July 2010 12:57 GMT PerfectBlue
Paranoid?
"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.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 10:03 GMT GarethJones
Won't somebody think of the children!!!
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"..
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 12:21 GMT Ted Treen
Why???
"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?"
-
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 10:03 GMT LuMan
Sigh..
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!!!
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Correction
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?
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 14:39 GMT ChrisC
Looking at the height of their wall/fence in that photo...
...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.
-
Thursday 1st July 2010 23:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Looking at it that way...
... 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.
-
-
-
Friday 9th July 2010 12:57 GMT PerfectBlue
Not so
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.
-
-
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:54 GMT Graham Wilson
Unfortunately, they're susceptible to propaganda from the fear-mongering industry.
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.
-
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 10:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Outrageous
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.
Big fail.
-
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 14:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Astonished
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.
-
-
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 10:10 GMT Andrew Baines
Why pixellate - just get it removed
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.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 10:10 GMT alain williams
Nudity != obscenity
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.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 10:15 GMT Anigel
So she advertises in all the nationals about how to find her child?
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
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 10:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
A female spokesoperative said...
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?
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:30 GMT James Hughes 1
What are you on about?
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.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:45 GMT James 6
Why do you care?
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.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:49 GMT Stuart Moore
Solution
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)
-
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:48 GMT seanj
Re: Outrageous!!!!
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?
:o)
-
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 10:18 GMT Ivan Slavkov
Some people need to get a life
Some people need to get a life.
A good idea may be to attend a beach with people who have one. Going on a holiday to a place where Germans, French, Spanish and other more sane people tends to help.
For f*** sake, this is a toddler's bottom. So what? We have all seen one. Those of us who have children and have to change nappies probably one time too many. Having it documented is not the end of the world.
Similarly those of us who do not go to beaches with bylaws set by taleban have it here or there on their holidays snaps. It is impossible not to have one while trying to take pics of your own offspring on a beach where nobody has their kids in swimwear up to the age of 5 (this is pretty much the norm for most beaches in the EU and especially for the ones where Brits are a minority).
If I was in her place I would have taken some screenshots for posterity to show on their wedding day in 20 years time instead of producing Daily Fail style fits of rage.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Only this last weekend
I had two of my sprogs running around the garden stark naked. I had a moments thought that anyone in the surrounding houses could easily see and take pictures. I even took a photo myself for posterity (you know, the 18th birthday party embarrassment), then the thought said, Fuck it. If they want to take pictures they could do, but it really doesn't matter, and it was my choice to let them run around like that. I am not going to curtail their freedom to prance around in their own garden naked just on the off chance some nonce is around with a camera.
If on the other hand, said nonce were to approach my children, naked or otherwise, and attempt anything untoward, I would cut his hands off with a rusty sledgehammer.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:48 GMT The Vociferous Time Waster
here we go again
A Greater Manchester mum is "angry, disgusted and upset"
That should read:
A Greater Manchester mum is "rubbing her hands with glee at the thought of £20,000 from the papers"
It's a toddlers arse, who cares? I doubt even the mythical paedosaurus will get it's rocks off on that. It's much more likely that an uncle of close friend of the family would be adding the mental image 'to the bank' after seeing it in real life - most abuse comes from family members and close friends after all.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 11:48 GMT Dan P
Re: A female spokesoperative said...
Have you considered the fact that you might have been mistakenly photographed by hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people whilst in public view? You know, those people out snapping holiday snaps, shots of their friends whilst you're walking past, shots of buildings, even perhaps (gasp!) a fine art photographer?
So presumably your perfect solution would be to have every photograph that gets taken in public be vetted by everyone in the world before it's 'approved' and allowed to be used by the photographer.
It's attitudes like that which lead to uninformed police officers harrassing innocent photographers for no legal reason.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 12:19 GMT Graham Wilson
The mother's creating a storm in a tiny teacup!
The mother's is creating a storm in a tiny teacup! Unfortunately, in an era of hyped-up overly sensitive sensibilities, even a mention by the media of such trivialities makes matters worse as it propagates similar notions to others.
I feel sorry for the poor kid who may end up psychotic by living in such a stressed and overprotective environment.
What in Hell's name has gone wrong with this society? Methinks society needs to acquire a grip on reality, it needs to be transported back to say 1940 or 1916 for a week or two--a time when upon hearing a scream from a woman somewhere in the street neighbours automatically knew she'd just received a telegram from the war department.
This story ought to pale into insignificant noise.
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 14:31 GMT Eden
There is a photo of me...
Back in the 1980's during one particularly hot spell I was straight out of a bath and back onto my little pedal bike and training wheel in the Garden without stopping for clothes.
Being the Adventurous young chap that I was it wasn't long before I pedalled out the front gate and down the street stark bollock naked.
What did my parents do on seeing my vie for freedom?
Run into the house to get the Camera and take a photo of my firm peachy buttocks working their way into the distance.
It's been posted on face book for all to see and shown to many a Girlfriend over the years.
These days you'd expect them to be arrested for "creating child pronography" and the child given an asbo for public indecency, that's assuming the child even makes it past the first hedge before the fabled urban pedo-monkey leaps out and abducts him/her.
They're everywhere don't you know!
-
Wednesday 30th June 2010 23:42 GMT M Gale
Modern times
I still remember reading through an old set of kids books from the VERY early 20th or late 19th century. "World of the Children", they were called. Showed you precise instructions on how to make black powder, amongst other innocent childhood pursuits. All told in a narrative style focussing around a family with a very cool set of parents who would do things like putting a car into a skid to explain how skids work, amongst other such fun.
Oh, and it had butt-naked pictures of children in it, passing off the differences in biology as something that "God did". And showing the excellent results you can get from a pinhole camera that had been enhanced with a few cheap lenses in a stack.
Different times, eh?
-
Thursday 1st July 2010 08:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Some people though...
.get off on anything. I posted some pics of our (then) new-born baby up on an un-advertised website just for friends and family to see. Checking the access logs later on, I found they were being used as the target or img src for porno spammers on various forums!!! Sheesh...
-
Thursday 1st July 2010 09:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
They took mine off
I saw them coming along a lane in a village near where I live.
I mooned then from my car window, with my teenage daughter cringling in the passenger seat!
When my area was released on Streetview, I went straight for it.
But <joke intended> it was completely missing!
They had gone back and redone that section.
The rest of the lane has a wet road, that section has dry, and I'm missing!
-
Friday 9th July 2010 07:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
legal actions now
How about sueing the google manager for publishing an indecent photograph of a preteen? As far as I know that is illegal in UK.
When they have to fear to get on the sex offender database, they will think twice before publishing anything automaticly on the interweb.
Maybe they will be more carefull and won't rely only on their algorithm, which can fail.
anon to avoid possible legal action by google.
Oh .... I hear the helicopter ...
-
Friday 9th July 2010 13:14 GMT Keris
Missing the point
Whether a toddler's backside is an "obscene sight" is irrelevant. The real point is that Google is distributing an image of a naked child, which if any of the rest of us did it would have us locked up as paedophiles. Worse, they have taken the photograph -- just taking photographs of clothed children in London gets you nicked! It's one law for them and another for us, and as usual the ordinary bloke doing his job is the one who gets molested by police who steal his property where the big corporations don't even get a warning.
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/police_photo_bother_romford/ ("Romford coppers try to stopper young snapper) from yesterday...
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
