Google Terror Threat 366
bogd wrote to mention a CNN article wherein Indian President Abdul Kalam stated his concerns that Google Maps could be used to aid terrorists. From the article: "The Google site contains clear aerial photos of India's parliament building, the president's house and surrounding government offices in New Delhi. There are also some clear shots of Indian defense establishments. Debbie Frost, spokewoman for Mountain View, California-based Google, noted that the software uses information already available from public sources and the images displayed are about one to two years old, not shown in real time."
Deny The Enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
Presidents that work for terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorism is about threat, and continously emphasising that threat is only helping the terrorists.
Outdated? (Score:1, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Famous terror attacks (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these were possible without maps.
The locations of most public buildings is already very well known. Government tends not to keep its existence a secret.
I just don't quite see how the information gleaned from google maps is really going to help a terrorist organisation any more than, say, mobile telephones and large bags.
Can't blame technology for Terrorism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Presidents that work for terrorists (Score:2, Insightful)
So google map is a threat... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it, that leaders everywhere invoke the terrorists notion, and almost always it is during an election or when they want something that is not related? It is becoming like the hitler thread.
Re:Presidents that work for terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
This is stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
This information can be gathered at other places but just beacuse we can find it on one place its dangerous? pffft.
Politicians love to talk ... (Score:5, Insightful)
crazy paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
Canberra's parliament house (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like you wake up one day and think to yourself, "Wow, Thanks to Google maps I can locate the foreign department's offices in new Delhi now, I might blow them up".
Austrlalia's parlimant and prime ministers private residency are accesible throught google maps quite easily, but any self discerning terrorist would probably know where these are long before those become available.
---
Computer Support in Sydney [progressiveit.com.au]
Pbulicly available? Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guys, emphasis is mine, but where else can I get this already available information to the public apart from a service similar to what Google offers? I do not know of any!
In other words . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Food helps terrorists. Air helps terrorists. Maps help terrorists.
You know what else helps terrorists? Constantly freaking out about how every little thing is either vulnerable to terrorists or helps terrorists.
Seriously, what is it with the people that can't think about anything but terrorists? Don't they realise they are part of the problem? Calm down, chill out, have a cup of tea, and don't be part of the problem.
Why bitching about Google maps is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Presidents that work for terrorists (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironically, it was Hermann Göring that said.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Invasion of privacy...it better not be.... (Score:5, Insightful)
As governments (made up of people) pursue the invasion of privacy of individuals in the name of anti-terrorism than it should not be a double standard.
What would happen if the whole world was able to look at any area and/or spot on the planet in various resolutions and as it currently is (up to date), as well as time lapse sections?
The arguement for invasion of privacy is to prevent wrong doings and identify those pursuing such criminal direction.
So lets apply open source software methodology to the world view of google maps and earth!!!
Lets' identify the fuckers with their war machines and intentions....and when they argue against it, throw them in the prison of total world exposure for being intentional unfair and supporting double standards.
Lets get Google Maps up to speed of being current!
We need it to apply open source software methodology in riding the world of terrorism.
Re:Deny The Enemy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzzzzt.... How would you call the blurring out of the white house?
Oh wait - it's god own country, that's something completely different.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
When you compare the number of deaths from terrorists with the number of deaths lost each year to weather, war, crime, or poverty things come into perspective very quickly.
Re:Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, you learn to live with it. Panicing and running scared from every concievable threat is probably the worst thing you could do.
Re:Can't blame technology for Terrorism. (Score:5, Insightful)
The box cutters only worked on 9/11 because the "scripted" response to a hijacking was to be quiet and cooperative while the terrorists make their demands, and then they'll let you go when they've gotten what they want. Sadly, that tactic isn't very promising when the terrorists' goal is the fly the plane into a building, but I doubt they made their hostages aware of that fact.
I don't think we'll see anyone hijacking a plane with box cutters again, no matter how many they manage to sneak aboard.
MOD PARENT UP!! (Score:1, Insightful)
As long as it's pacifists that are dying, not brave men and women, I'm all for multi-culturalism.
An ethical question regarding privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Presidents that work for terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we make a mantra out of this?
Yes, a bomb in a work building killing up to thousands of people at a time is scary, but terrorism only becomes terrorism when a unique freak occurrence invokes a pervasive fear in people. Otherwise, its just a unique freak occurrence or "act of god".
Lets say that 500 people were killed in each of two different scenarios. 1) 500 people died in a building due to an earthquake. 2) 500 people died due to a deliberately set bomb.
Same net death count, but which one is more likely to be labeled as "terrorist"? And once the buildings are rebuilt and people go about their lives, what would be the difference between their lives? Odds are, the only difference would be how much one concentrates on and thinks about the event, and much of what they will think about will be in terms of fear. Now, imagine that the bomb was found to be set by a psychotic child and he was safely secured in a mental facility. Then, the fear would go down, and almost completely disappear. Now, if the bomb was by a network of organized people that have planned for years to deliberately set the bomb. The fear goes up. Why is that? It must have something to do with the deliberateness and all of that organization and planning. Keep in mind, that there are plenty of jobs and places to live that are much more dangerous than working in an office building.
Do people that have these dangerous jobs live in perpetual fear? Cab drivers, policemen, fishermen, rock stars, astronauts, soldiers? Hell no. At most, if they are that concerned for their family, they quit doing what they are doing and do something else. Otherwise, they just take it as being an acceptable risk to die doing what they want to do. For example, its an acceptable risk to drive for most people. Its the number one accidental way to die, yet people still do it, and do crazy variations of it like not wearing a seatbelt, driving when impaired from sleep deprivation or alcohol use, or driving at excessive speeds or in inclimate weather. So, even when there is a known risk of death, I don't know of anybody that is in fear of driving. Maybe have the sense to not do it under certain circumstances, but nowhere near a pervasive fear.
So, what is there to fear about going to work in an office building? Look hard. I'm sure you will figure it out.
Actually, he has a point ... (Score:1, Insightful)
If Al-Queda wanted to cause a complete breakdown in the United States' economy, the most ultimate economy shattering that has been delivered in the history of the world - they would go into India and destroy the tech sector by blowing up the tech parks and computer infrastructure. IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq, Microsoft, all the banks in America, all the airlines in America - they are all heavily over-invested in having moved their tech centers to India - and a few back-pack nukes set off in Bangalore destroying all the tech parks there would bring the US economy to its knees.
Forget the goverment offices, forget doing anything on US soil - all they have to do is send a few dozen Al-Queda guys with AK-47s, grenades and torches into India to burn down 50 or so hi-tech buildings and the US economy would never recover. It would make September 11th look like a picnic, and it would be a heck of a lot easier to coordinate and carry off, Google maps blurring the PM's house or not.
Ironically enough, thanks to GWB, Al-Queda doesn't have the resources or strength to pull off that level of attack (which is a good thing, given how bad doing so would destroy America's economy, and how easy and cheap it would be to accomplish.)
found a new fscinating component (Score:2, Insightful)
Destroyer (Score:3, Insightful)
It would seem that DHS and similar have created a new golden opportunity for terrorists everywhere.
In the 'old days' terrorists had to mess with dangerous explosives, or if really ambitious, chemical and biological hazards. The old holy grail, dangerous nuclear material was generally out of reach.
Today, they can create just as much terror in government and the civillian population just by thinking up something a terrorist MIGHT think of and promptly mentioning it to appropriate authorities. The kicker is that by taking that approach, they are mostly indistinguishable from 'the good guys' and still accomplish their goal.
Re:Presidents that work for terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignore terrorism, and shun people who push it as an agenda. This policy has three effects: one, you aren't scared all the time (defeats terrorism); two, it removes credence from the terrorists; three, it gives less power to the promoters of terrorism. Duh. Terrorists play the 'terror card' to accomplish political gain. Bush is playing the terror card to stay in power and take away your civil liberties with crap like the PATRIOT Act. The 'liberal media elite' is playing the terror card to win viewers. They are all reprehensible. Because they all create fear for political or economic gain, they are all terrorists. The difference is that Al-Qaeda are trying to make us scared of being killed. Bush and the media are trying to make us scared of the threat of an attack, as a psychological tool to manipulate us.
I honestly don't know which is worse. At least if I'm dead, I still have my country.
Re:Actually, he has a point ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheesh. Cut the hysteria.
First of all, this is probably impossible. They don't have enough people and resources to do this. Al Queda, while being real and dangerous, is nowhere near as ominous a threat as our incompetent and hysterical government claims. AQ is just another device being used by governments to scare us into giving up our freedoms in the name of security. Notice how the government does not request secrecy for any private chemical plants or refineries, or other vulnerable targets. This is just politicians reacting hysterically to their own trumped up crap.
Second of all, even if all of India's tech sector imploded, or all of New York City was vaporized, it would at most put a few percent of people out of work temporarily. There would be no worldwide depression, no starvation, no nuclear war. It would be an asterisk on page 10,000 of human history.
Re:Actually, he has a point ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a good point that the US can be damaged by attacks outside the US, where the US has much less control, but I wonder if the US companies' tech centers in India are as critical as parent suggests. The tech companies are not actually run out of their Indian centers, nor is that where their manufacturing is done. It isn't where their basic R&D is done either, in most cases. Taking out phone support would be a blow, but I doubt it would crippling.
Furthermore, what do you mean "thanks to GWB"? True, he did attack al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11, as any President would have, but since then he has neglected Afghanistan, allowing al-Qaeda and the Taliban to remain strong in many areas, has diverted resources under false pretenses to Iraq, which had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, and has made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorists and a rallying point for anti-American sentiment. And thanks to his administration's incompetence, blind ideology, and cronyism, US intelligence and security are in most respects even worse than they were.
Re:Actually, he has a point ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Offtopic fo' yo' gran-momma... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about speaking English. English is a major language in India. The accent, hey, nothing wrong with nicely asking the tech to repeat, and then even to say it back to them once you get it...They'd probably listen to your pronunciation of it and try to better say it like that.
I read all the flack India's call centre population get, and I don't understand it...I've got mad respect for that whole scene. Granted, the choice of giving "them" "our" jobs, I can understand as being a bitching point, but we should aim that at the folks who in a greedy negative move, decided to screw over their countrymen for a buck. But the bright side is that they also accidentally did something good by giving localities in such an economically screwed, yet, intellectually RICH country a chance to come out into the tech sector like this, and really improve local economies that definitely could have used a little jumpstart..In a few years, when all those Indian call centre employees are working for (or perhaps owning) the giant Indian software megalith corporations that will soon be emerging, the call centre jobs will come back to the US...Maybe when they do, you'll even be getting trained to speak at your call centre job with a more understandable INDIAN accent.
I can't wait to visit India...Stopping into a call centre is one of my plans... (Getting screaming drunk with as many of the techs as I can is another)
Thank you, come again.
Re:Nothing new.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Government ideas to counter terror (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be funny if the feds hadn't told cops to be on the lookout [cnn.com] for people carrying almanacs. Or if they weren't hassling [69.93.170.43] casual [toomuchsexy.org] photographers [boingboing.net] everywhere [freedomtophotograph.com].
Re:outsourcing (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Government ideas to counter terror (Score:3, Insightful)
In the ensuing weeks after 9/11 my then-coworkers (who at that job tended to be old - like 50's to 60's old) looked at me in shock when I told them that I've flown my plane into a building in Flight Simulator pretty much every single time. When they asked why I just told them "because landing is hard"
We used to lament how lame it was that Flight Simulator didn't have "cool crashes" - after 9/11, we were glad it didn't.
You know, I have news for you (Score:5, Insightful)
2) India is a real, no shit, well-armed nation. If Al-Queda started trying to pull off attacks in India, they'd work to stop them, and by and large succede. Also note that India doesn't have a bill of rights, the authorities get more latitude when dealing with criminals over there, and many things considered cruel and unusual in the US are normal there. What's more, in a matter that was national security related, they'd have even less restrictions.
3) Al Queda NEVER had the resources to pull of an attack like that.
So please, let's cut the mad-tinfoil-hattery here. India has better security than to allow every US intrest in India to be destoryed and if you blew up all the call centres, the world would not stop turning.
Re:Actually, he has a point ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only the most simple-minded would think they have NO reason, though limiting it to carry-on luggage is somewhat disingenuous. Rubber-stamped Wiretaps, IP data interception, indefinite detetention without due process of law... none of these have anything to do with carry-on luggage, but they're all things born of the fear of the AQ bogeyman, all usable to releive us "consumers" of our freedoms.
Re:Actually, he has a point ... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the hell are people going to get OVER the TERRORISTS? If someone is intent on doing you harm, they will find a way. Period. End of freakin' story. It doesn't matter how many draconian laws you pass, or how much information you hide.
Seems like the enitre world has reached new heights in unsubstantited paranoia. Yes terrorist attacks happen. Yes they suck. But you have more of a chance of being struck by lightening than you do being struck down by terrorists.
Live in fear, and you have built your own cage. And the terrorists win.
And no, thanks to GWB, we have more to worry about from terrorists because now they attack people who are less able to prevent/defend against them and are less educated and are more religious (always a very dangerous combination). People are more willing to join them because they don't like the US and would rather be the "Devil's" right hand than in his path. Fear works.
AH! Don't put that on the web! It can be used by terrorist! AH! Don't do that! The terrorist will get ideas! AH! Don't say that! The terrorists might hear you!
It's repulsive. It's stupid.
Backpack nukes? Sheesh. Study the mechanics of a real nuke and see just how infeasible a backpack nuke is.
Fearmongering at its best. I thought we left this sh*t back in the 50's and 60's. Only then it was communism.
But on the bright side, we should be able to feed the starving with all this red herring.
~X~
Re:Nothing new.. (Score:3, Insightful)