This whole "Girls Around Me" thing has been blow way out of proportion. Every site seems to imply that this is the go to app for rapists. However, to play devils advocate, I would argue that you are actually SAFER with this app than without.
There are three scenarios that can play out:<p>1. Someone opens up this app, looks for girls nearby and pics one from this app. In this case it would stupid for the rapist to go for the girl because her whereabouts are known so the police would know the area where she was abducted and therefore it would be easier to identify the rapist/murderer as they can check nearby security cameras and know where to look around.
The conclusion would be that if the rapist/murderer/whatever was following logic he would avoid people listed in this app.<p>This leads us to the second possible scenario:<p>The rapist/murderer does not follow any logic and just commits his crime based on primitive instincts (ever heard of rapists who have intercourse with sheep and kettle?)
In that case you loose any way because that person strikes at random and thus the chances are not increased because you checked in somewhere.<p>and then there is the final and third scenario:<p>Someone is trying to murder or rape YOU specifically after picking you out from this app. But lets be reasonable the chances of that happening are ABYSMAL because guess what most people don't want to rape you.<p>Also relevant:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oww4Ap3YZA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oww4Ap3YZA</a>
How clever can people get with a set of API's, do something questionable and/or scary, and not get publicized? That's what scares me. So many open API's out there and clever people will keep their mash-ups confined to a closed circle audience. Makes me wonder when companies that offer open API's will be more discerning.
The greatest benefit of these overblown stranger-danger stories seems to be the fact, that it creates more awareness of privacy issues outside of our typical EFF friend circles.
Foursquare has already revoked their access.<p>Still, this kind of writing is pure sensationalism. It's virtually the same "concern" publications were having over robbers monitoring your Foursquare account to break into your house when you're not home.
I wonder if the author also refuses to go to bars, because there have been people beaten at or abducted from them, or drive a car, because there have been cases of road rage, or avoid churches because they have been boarded and burned, or schools because there have been shootings, or...<p>People shouldn't base their lives and decisions around imagined scenarios that involve sociopaths. This is just more shoddy, fear-based 'journalism' piggy-backing on a scare wave. It does nothing to improve people's understanding of their privacy settings and options, and does everything to exploit a trend for more page views.