Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Crack deal caught on Google Maps?

It has yet to make its way to Canada (although the cars have been spotted, and there has already been controversy over privacy laws) but in many U.S. cities, Google's "Streetview" service provides high-resolution photos of the street when you select a location on Google Maps. A whole subculture has emerged on the Web since the service went live, of people trading and commenting on photos of people sunbathing nude, words carved into cornfields and so on.

This week, a series of photographs showed up on several sites that appeared to show two men engaging in a drug deal on the streets of Chicago. Although the photos have since been removed from Google's database, there are still plenty of versions of them available on the Web. But do they actually show a drug deal? There's a black man in a baseball cap, large white T-shirt and baggy jeans bending over into the window of a car, with what appears to be cash or a small package in his hand -- but does that mean it's a drug deal?

Some commenters at Gawker and elsewhere argued that to assume it was a drug deal was an overtly racist response. Others, however -- including some Chicago residents -- were more than happy to chime in that the area was a well-known drug neighbourhood, and in one case a commenter said that she had bought drugs at that exact location before. Another said that he was "robbed at gunpoint while trying to buy pot" at the same spot. And Gawker editor Nick Denton pointed to a local site with crime statistics for the area that seemed to back up the drug-deal explanation.

Just one troubling point, as more than one commenter noted: the Google Streetview photos are taken by a car -- in most cases a Volkswagen Beetle -- with a 360-degree camera mounted on a tripod on the roof. If the other men near the car were (as some argued) keeping an eye out for cops, how could they not notice a Beetle driving by with a gigantic camera strapped to its roof? Whoever the dealer is, he needs some new lookouts.

  1. Mike K from Canada writes: Here is the original link (now edited by Google) - http://tinyurl.com/24v7u5 - and little history on how this went viral .

    I picked up the link somewhere the archaic chat world of IRC and immediately recognized the potential. I quickly posting the link to a social voting site - http://tinyurl.com/3xuxo6 . While it didn't have great popularity there, my friend Andy had noticed it. Given his enormous clout at Digg he submitted the same exact link there ( http://tinyurl.com/2o8ysw ) and it garnished enough views for the regurgitaters at Gawker to milk it for all it was worth. Then you picked up on it.

    Again there is no evidence that the transaction was for crack but there is a money counting or transfer of some kind. It could have been heroin or pokemon cards for all we know. I used the word crack because that was how the person in the chat room worded the link they found.

    I had completely forgot about this submission until now and it is mere coincidence that I read Ingram and he chose to continued the discussion about something I broke to the world.

    Happy Social Media People!

    http://twitter.com/mikeontv

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Ingram 2.0

Back to top