Making it easy for stalkers

[Adam]

Hi folks,

This is true. If you don't want people to easily find your address from your phone number, then you need to remove yourself from the Google database. I just tested it. But their database is a few years old. They still have the old address for where I work. My cell is not listed; my home is. That sort of thing.

Adam

--------------

Fw:

Am forwarding to you the email that I received below. You may not have been previously aware of this developing Google capability. Google has implemented a new feature wherein you can type someone's telephone number into the search bar and hit enter and then you will be given their address, and a button to make a map. Everyone should be aware of this!

You can have your phone number removed or blocked. Before forwarding

this, I tested it by typing my telephone number in google.com. My phone numbercame up, and when I clicked on the MapQuest link, it actually mapped out where

I live.

Quite scary. Please look up your own number. Read below for details. Think

about it-if a child, ANYONE gives out his/her phone number, someone

can actually now look it up to find out where he/she lives. The safety

issues are obvious, and alarming. In order to test whether your phone number is

mapped, go <http://www.google.com/> Type your phone number

in the search bar and hit enter.

If you want to BLOCK Google from divulging your private information,

simply click on the telephone listing, which takes you to a form. Removal takes 48-hours.

If you are unlisted in the phone book, you might not be in there, but

it is a good idea just to check. If your number does come up if you hit map,

it will show you a direct map to your house...

[Big Wheel]

The problem is that I have a hard time seeing how any determined stalker would stop when he found no Google listing. It's very easy just to hop on over to any number of reverse phone directory websites and do the exact same thing. I'm sure it couldn't hurt any, but I wouldn't rest easy either...

[Jazzmoose]

When it comes to encouraging stalking and dangerous internet behavior, in all honesty, I'd be more concerned with posting pictures of my kids and/or loved ones on the net than I would be with this. It's a scary world out there...

[Dave James]

The question I have is why Congress won't step in and tell Google to go fuck themselves. I realize it runs counter to that body's nature to actually do something of any real value for their constituents, but it sure seems like this might be worth looking into. Otherwise, you have to ask the question, where does it end?

Up over and out.

[Guest DizzySpells]

The question I have is why Congress won't step in and tell Google to go fuck themselves. I realize it runs counter to that body's nature to actually do something of any real value for their constituents, but it sure seems like this might be worth looking into. Otherwise, you have to ask the question, where does it end?

Up over and out.

You want the government to regulate the Internet?

Good luck.

[Rooster_Ties]

I imagine that it really wouldn't be all that hard to find and stalk someone, unless they were well-known "nationally".

A good friend of mine is married to someone in the broadcast media (his wife is a meteorologist for one of our local TV stations). Her "on-air" name is different than her legal name, but he and I both suspect that if somebody really wanted to find her -- it wouldn't be all that hard. (Unfortunately, the easiest thing to do would be to follow her when she drove home after the end of one of her broadcasts.)

I imagine that a couple times per decade, per "market", two or three local TV media people get stalkers (usually of the minor-league variety, thankfully). Not all that often, I suppose, but not nearly infrequently enough if you're actually in that line of work.

There was one such case about 6 or 8 years ago, here in Kansas City. Don't remember the details -- but it got pretty serious. Spontoonious might remember. (Hey Spontoon -- wasn't it Harris Falkner (local news anchor at the time) who got stalked sometime back in the mid-to-late 90's??)

Scary stuff.

Edited March 12, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[Uncle Skid]

How is this Google feature any different from the countless "reverse" phone lookup feature on many sites? I'm aware of at least one site that has had that feature for at least 10 years.

Google may make it easier by generating a map automatically, but the ability to get your name and address from only your phone number has been around for quite awhile.

What I find much more disturbing is the "people search" at places like intelius.com. In additon to searching by phone, you can use social security numbers and maiden names, and do background checks as well.

I was on my high school reunion committee last year, and we paid for a three month subscription to that site. We found quite a few "lost" classmates that way, but it was scary how much personal information was easily available.

[Brad]

Our number's unlisted so nothing turned up. However, my mother's isn't and a lot turned up. Then I punched in my name and I found out that I was also a pastor at a church (not kidding) but then I also found that Alan Lankin had thanked me as well as many others for giving an addition/correction back in 2000 or so.

[Dr. Rat]

I can't see what the big deal is.

If you don't want stuff like this to happen, get off the internet, get your phone number unlisted and go off and live in a cave somewhere.

Expecting some high level of privacy with zero effort and expense on your part in a wired society is not exactly intelligent.

The big factor in being victimized by a stalker is not their knowing your address and phone number. And are stalkers really something we ought to be worrying about? How about the SARS virus, or catching aids from doorknobs or pit bulls or satanic cults or something like that?

Just try to come to grips with the fact that you are a social being and that you can't have absolute control over all you interactions, what people say about you or what people know about you. Or head off to the cave.

--eric

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

When it comes to encouraging stalking and dangerous internet behavior, in all honesty, I'd be more concerned with posting pictures of my kids and/or loved ones on the net than I would be with this. It's a scary world out there...

You ain't kiddin'! Just try to get between this kid and his fries!

[Achtung Dr. Freud Calling]

My, my....how these search engines continue to grow in sophistication!!! Google now pulls up an old Letter-to-the-Editor of mine from an '86 issue of Commentary mag. That sure wasn't the case last time I checked. Who here reads Commentary? Still one of the best out there. B-)

[The Red Menace]

I am reminded of the American witmeister Woody Allen's remark that Commentary and Dissent should merge, resulting in a new magazine: Dysentery.

[The Red Menace]

And what of your liberal past, Herr Doktor??? Does Google provide evidence of that??? Hmmm???

Edited March 12, 2005 by The Red Menace

[Adam]

Ah, but inflammatory thread names are better to raise interest. Let's consider it an exercise in consciousness raising instead. I personally was not suitably aware of reverse look-ups on line, and now I will be.

I agree that any determined stalker (just like any truly determined thief, etc) will find a way to the necessary information. But it does work perhaps as a deterrent for those not truly determined, llike locking your car doors will reduce the chance of having your car broken into by a casual car thief.

But now I think I want to subscribe to Commentary

[Adam]

While you're at it, do a little Googlemeistering around and please find out for me when all of ze splendid Amerikan kartoons like Huckleberry Hound, Mr. Magoo, Mighty Mouse, Atom Ant, Deputy Dawg, Tennesse Tuxedo and Top Cat will be out on DVD. It's a crime zat so many of ze children miss these!

You mean Underdog isn't enough?