Google Blurring Sensitive Map Information 411
Cyphoid writes "While viewing my school (the University of Massachusetts Lowell) with Google Maps, I noticed that a select portion of the campus was pixelated: the operational nuclear research facility on campus. Curious, I attempted to view the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts. It too was pixelated. What or who is compelling Google to smudge out these images selectively? Will all satellite images of facilities that the government deems 'sensitive' soon be subject to censoring?" Not surprisingly, the same areas are blurred in Google Earth. But how about images from satellites operated by other nations, such as SPOT or Sovinformsputnik?
Dunno these places seem fine (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A blur is almost as good as a bullseye (Score:5, Interesting)
It brings up an interesting point. Now terrorists can use an algorithm to look for fuzzy areas, and will know they are of interest. If you want Al Quida to nail your enemy, then just put a fuzzy tarp on his/her roof.
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
So can anyone explain why this building is being blurred?
Old news, really! They did this when Kodak sold.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The original maps were bought from Keyhole, a company that Kodak used to own. In the past they only offered LandSat imagery of all Kodak buildings (15 meter), but now they've just gone to the original 1 meter and simply kerneled it. It's EXTREMELY easy to see here- check out the parking lots.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=14616&ie=
I have found it to be a bit annoying as I use features around the airport for identification for my work, and it was always nice to have an outside 'reference' which might or might not agree with the GPS solution.
And why would Kodak care about providing high resolution targetting information of their infrastructure to competitors, not including the 10,000 gallon tanks of various hydrocarbon solvents that are stored near the center of the complex so that, should an explosion occurr, the buildings themselves will buffer 80% of the immediate damage and pressure wave to prevent wanton death and destruction?
For 'sensitive' areas it's not much to ask.
Oh, and btw- No problem seeing 1m resolution here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=38.88
My point? It's not that tough to get high resolution CQQs from your local state bureau. The county mosaics are high resolution and flown 2x per year by the USDA.
not just sensitive places (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Simcurity (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course governments are plotting to blow up nuclear facilities. What do you think they do in their war departments? What do you think we do in ours about their facilities?
As for corporations, and governments, blowing them up isn't the only thing they'd like to do. They'd like to copy them, or just learn about security, construction or science techniques. That's what espionage, corporate or government, is mainly used for. Every day. For which those orgs already use a lot better resources than Google maps.
And what kind of defense is "who needs this public info"? Aerial images are not on a "need to know" basis. Nor does obscuring them protect them. It does protect them from investigations by journalists and members of the public, who don't have budgets or even knowledge of the alternative sources. But who do pose the real, documented threat to facilities owners, as I pointed to in my original post.
Yeah, reality. Not like that Unabomber, because it's not as exciting to the oversimplistic imagination. But it does have the advantage of being real.
Other nuclear plants unblurred... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=16&ll=44.6
To the lower left, you can even see the waste storage containers. If you look closely, you can even see the machine gun nests. Incidentally, I visited this facility as part of a physics trip back in my undergrad years, before 9-11. I don't know if they allow visitors anymore.
Also, the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant unblurred.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1899+CR-7
Catawba Nuclear Plant (Score:2, Interesting)
Tanks in Baghdad! (Score:1, Interesting)
http://maps.google.com/maps?p=&c=&t=k&hl=en&ll=33
Re:Area in Far Eastern Russia (Score:2, Interesting)
Somebody Knows What They're Doing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Simcurity (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Say What? (Score:3, Interesting)
There was some great annoyance with newspaper reporters of the time that contradicted reports of victory - some members of the press went to see what was supposed to be a captured town a couple of days later and found themselves well in front of the line and that the town had never been captured.
Sovinformsputnik? (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, their sample page World Trade Center [sovinformsputnik.com]. "These twin towers dominate the skyline by their height and the clearness of their lines. Currently it is the center for nearly every phase of international business...."
So not really a real-time database.
Re:Simcurity (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, while you make some decent points, it's obvious that you've never actually seen the full Ben Franklin quote, otherwise you wouldn't be referring to him while making your claims. So, for your benefit, I shall now reproduce the full quote, with the parts that you're missing highlighted for ease of understanding.
Also, I should note that this quote is falsely attributed to Franklin. While he was the first to publish this statement, he was not in fact the author of the publication in which it was contained.
Re:Simcurity (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks, but I did read the same wiki page you did before posting: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin [wikiquote.org]. And since I didn't put quotes around the statement, I will NOT be accused of incorrectly quoting when all I was doing was paraphrasing. Also, I'm aware that the attribution to Franklin is an oversimplification. Now that that's out of the way, you have failed to change my opinion that the quote is relevant. Were you trying to make some SPECIFIC point about the words you highlighted or do you want to play the guessing game? Since the rest of your post comes along as pontification, I'm surprised you leave your actual point so vague.
Frankly, I don't think government should always be to blame everytime a tragedy occurs. As to the point of blurred out images, the better safe than sorry argument seems overkill. And yes, there is a COST to being "better safe". Not everyone thinks, as you do, that the cost should be paid every time with our ESSENTIAL liberties. Have you listened to the news lately about how our attorney general doesn't think habeus corpus is explicitly implied in the constitution? Well, technically, neither are free speech, press, religion or assembly. Don't be fooled into thinking that some liberties are less essential than others -- you won't have any left to give away after a while.
Re:A blur is almost as good as a bullseye (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:MassGIS (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's launch our own recon satellite! (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously. HAM operators have already launched radio relay satellites in the past; and there's nothing preventing us from doing something similar as a grassroots movement. We may even be able to read some imagery in real-time. By licensing the image stream and database similarly to Wikipedia (cc-by-sa, gfdl, ...) we'd stay true to our open source credo and spirit. Much better than the crippleware commercial offerings of Google and others anyway! Competition and verifiability will keep them honest as well.
Let's just make sure to have the main satellite operation center and a few relays in countries that don't promote censorship; perhaps on a pacific island, in a desert etc... Oh, and a few reflecting surfaces and other defensive means to protect against chinese killer satellites would be a good idea too.
Financing this is would also be quite easy, I suppose. How about selling news agencies and TV networks priority slots to cover a regional crisis, wars and other events in near-real time; something they won't get from commercial operators even for big bucks?
Once Upon a Time.... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a difference in degree, but not much else.
Welcome to the Brave New World, kids, and the best part about it is that we did it all to ourselves.