Google to Blur Sensitive India Sites 194
theodp writes "Citing unnamed officials, the Times of India is reporting that Google Earth has agreed to blur and distort Indian locations identified by the government after security concerns were voiced by the country's president. This includes total blurring of locations like government buildings, as well as the outlines/building plans of key facilities. This came about after a recent meeting between Google technicians and Indian officials."
Re:What about individuals? (Score:2, Interesting)
Do no... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:HEY DON'T LOOK AT THIS! (Score:2, Interesting)
Got to wonder..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Make a good 1st impression. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OK, crazy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Call me crazy... (Score:5, Interesting)
So? You're implying that terrorists would use Google Earth? How? The only thing that might be useful to them would be real-time displays of military activity. Years-old photos of sites they'e lived near for years will be of no more than decorative use.
Re:trail of tears (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm amazed that apparently enough people to mod you to a 4 think that the locations of important infrastrucure is somehow particularly "secret," and omg this is a huge exploit!
How stupid do you think terrorrists are?
Re:Call me crazy... (Score:2, Interesting)
I know mods are sometimes scared shitless of terrorists, but I can't understand why you have to mod as a troll everyone that states their very measured opinion, even without saying the names of the countries - namely USA and Israel.
The fact that you could so easily understand who he's talking about gives him even more credit, because if we're measured by our actions, so should be countries.
Re:who cares ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No, it doesn't make sense. (Score:3, Interesting)
That got modded insightful ? Get real!
"No it doesn't make sense. At a time when the internet provide dozens of different way to get that specific information, be it in several other on-line aerial-photo mapping softwares, or on various other online source,"
I don't buy that. Sure there is a lot of stuff on the internet but super high res satellite photographs of sensitive government installations ? Give me a break. That wont happen until every tom dick and harry gets his own satellite.
There are multiple sources of satellite and aerial photographs, especially when we are talking about public areas like government buildings. Someone already mentioned digitalglobe [digitalglobe.com] as a source google themselves might use (and which others use -- it draws on multiple sources apparently itself), and this site [spaceimaging.com] lists several different sources for satellite imagery which is available to the public. So yes, there are a lot of toms dicks and harrys out there with satellites. Welcome to the 21st century.
"And besides, it's just security through obscurity, and we all know very well how much that strategy works well."
Your trying to draw a parallel between two completely different fields with different goals and purposes. A government installation is not "open source software" that everyone gets a chance to get a peek see and everyone by and large is benevolent when looking at the source. When you have a country's defense on the line and a lot of baddies want to maim and kill people, obscurity is one of the best weapons. What next ? Show people on the witness relocation program on national television ?
No, the problems and solutions are not at all as disparate as you claim, by your own admission. Government facilities are indeed places where everyone gets a peek and by and large everyone is benevolent looking at the source. If you are talking about less public areas, like military installations, you would be surprised perhaps how much the public is allowed to see. Some military bases are pretty much completely ope to civilian traffic, and those which aren't often have very close perimeters. Even places like Area 51 regularly attract civilians who are able to record an awful lot of information about location of buildings, security measures, and activity. A telephoto lens and/or a telescope or set of binoculars can reveal an awful lot with little chance that the observer will be observed. And those people mostly are not trying to blow the place up.
The argument about security through obscurity is not about the moral question of keeping secrets. It is an indictment based on the fact that any security plan that cannot withstand scrutiny is weaker than one which can. And in this case the attempt to restrict information from one source when there are many others including local surveillance is, besides being a fool's errand in itself, indicative of a fear that the security measures in place will not measure up to an actual attempt. It is also very much in the same vein as the "fig-leaf" faux security that has marked the "war on terror" in general; it is clearly a justified criticism.