Daily review 06/01/2022

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 14 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

14 comments on “Daily review 06/01/2022”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  1. 1

    Be warned. Google really does know everything.

    A Mafia member who was living under another name in Spain was recognised from a photo on Google Maps. I assume that was on street view.

    I am quite split on this one. Is it an unacceptable breach of privacy and we should demand that Google must do more to blur their photos or is it a wonderful product of the technology where a murderer has been captured?

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/300491415/italian-mafia-fugitive-caught-after-police-spot-him-on-google-maps

    1. 1.1

      When you browse Google street view faces are algorithmically blurred, including in the cited article, but due to their general co-operation with law enforcement I would assume Google allows them to access the images in more detail.

      That all said, the article states the gangster’s identity was ultimately confirmed by a picture of himself he had posted on his restaurants Facebook page. I’d say that’s more an own goal than a breach of privacy issue.

      1. 1.1.1

        I didn't realise until you said it that "street view faces are algorithmically blurred". I had imagined that this had been done just for this photo before putting it in the paper. However having just had a look at some local views I see you are quite right. In that case I guess I can stop being worried about the privacy issue. Still pretty impressive though isn't it?

    2. 1.2

      Reads like it was a combination of solid detective work & uncannily good luck for the police. They were already looking for him. Fair cop, I reckon.

  3. 3

    Reading this, I thought the Pontiff had completely lost the plot:

    Deciding not to have children and lavishing affection instead on pets is selfish, Pope Francis has said, in remarks which provoked anger and disbelief.

    But then, as I read on, I wondered if he might actually be on to something:

    Couples who do not procreate deny themselves the joys of parenthood, a decision which “diminishes us, takes away our humanity”, he said.

    The result is that “civilisation grows old without humanity because we lose the richness of fatherhood and motherhood”.

    He might have a point there. Although if he wants to be accorded any credibility on this matter he needs to get the gonads to abolish celibacy in the Catholic priesthood, a self-imposed condition that he himself suffers from, & that far too many bent predatory priests have exploited to get close to their victims. As far as I know the Catholic Church is the only Western Christian faith that demands that its pastors embrace this unnatural way of life.

    His remarks about parenthood provoked anger on social media, with many people pointing out that the pope had chosen to remain childless by entering the Catholic Church as a priest.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300491368/pope-francis-says-having-pets-instead-of-children-is-selfish

    1. 3.1

      Damn those non males and their unproductive wombs.

      Never mind that children cost a lot of money, need space and dedication, and above all the parents in order to actually want to bring children into this world need a sense of tomorrow and right now, lol….but then what would the Pope know about getting in a partnership long enough and stable enough in order to even just contemplate children, never mind his own vow of celibacy that in its own is rather selfish and deprived this planet of his offspring.

      2. 3.1.2

        I must confess I have always had a soft spot for this comment about Catholic Priests.

        "You no play-a da game, you no make-a da rules".

        On the other hand it wasn't a great success for the US Cabinet Officer who first said it.

Comments are closed.