Comments on: Restricting Internet Mapping Imagery

By: Drew

Drew — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:48:41 +0000

Josh, I do not know where you are from or your background, but do not belittle the relevance of terrorism or those who express concern. Resorting to a sense of complacency with the issue of terrorism is a horrible place to be.

Likewise, I have unwavering faith in the security and intelligence forces of this country to foil any plots based on google map imagery. The resolution of google maps or any free online provider is poor and typically outdated. Hands on reconnaissance would be needed anyway to confirm the layout of infastructure.

Also, This debate between public right to know and national security is silly. Blurring out the white house, military bases, intelligence agencies, federal buildings etc. does not leave the public worse off than they were. We are so engaged in electronic media we forget to check its relevance through manual means. Many locations are accessible to the public if you feel so inclined to see them and the White House will remain at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

By: Ecir Nodnarb

Ecir Nodnarb — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:05:43 +0000

The cat is out of the bag and the genie is out of the bottle. Those images are out there, and anyone planning anything, has already collected and stored them. Perhaps we should keep the images available for the first responders who will need that data if the time comes or are we going to blindfold and gag truth and goodness to assauge our consciences for the trivial infraction of letting deciept and evil see the same data?

By: josh

josh — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:09:25 +0000

I think this issue of terrorism is way too much overplayed by over-zealous and scared people (Americans). We should then even ban anybody possessing brains if for one second they can plot against us.

By: Jeff Harrison

Jeff Harrison — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:22:55 +0000

Maybe GPS should be banned too? The terrorists might use them to find targets.

By: Archie Belaney

Archie Belaney — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:34:16 +0000

I can think of no more obvious way to call attention to structures that are considered worth protecting. Blanking out areas to preserve anonymity (military bases, the White House, etc.) also assumes there’s a defensive perimeter to prevent closer investigation. In the event an openly-accessible civil structure is blurred, where is the commensurate perimeter? Who shall protect our children when we’ve drawn a bullseye on their school?

And if this idea is for a chemical plant with dangerous liquids behind a 10-foot chain link fence, wouldn’t it be better to leave the casual observer guessing, rather than sending such an obvious signal there are poisons lurking there?

In an open and civil society, where citizens are free to post Youtube videos of their visit to the Golden Gate Bridge, share Flikr albums of their childs’ school play, and take pictures of otherwise-undocumented sewerage spilling from overflow pipes into rivers after a rainfall, what is next? Shall we ban cars so terrorists cannot surveil our streets? Stop people from walking? Set perimeters around every school, shopping mall, police/fire/ambulance facility, hospital, bridge, pipeline, chemical plant, or (gasp) filling station?

No rational security professional could advocate for such an inane idea as blurring the very things we wish to preserve most.

As Will Rogers once said:
“This country has come to feel the same when the Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.”

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:08:56 +0000

This would be a huge leap backwards. It is freely available aerial imagery that has finally given GIS some sort of meaning to the General Public.

A sad day for GIS.

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:19:18 +0000

Mike believe me, I understand what you’re saying. It goes beyond “living in a bubble” though. I’m a soldier currently stationed in the Republic of Korea. First to give some background for my situation I want it known that the Korean War never ended. We are in armistice, a temporary non-agression period so to speak. At any point in time conflict can arise(and with recent activities seems more likely). With that said; I heard the stories of terrorists using internet mapping sites and decided to take a look for myself. To much surprise, my very own duty station was clearly visible with everything highlited and labeled. Offices, living quarters, down to single standing ATM machines. With a VERY REAL THREAT, not much more than an hour away, imagine how costly that is to the lives of our soldiers and their families (some of them here with us). Like I said I understand what you’re saying and I’m all about freedoms, however, for what use or meaning could this imagery be more valuable than protecting American lives?

By: mike

mike — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:32:32 +0000

I can’t believe Anderson; you cannot stop people from obtaining images of the world. Just because the images may be used to find locations to strategically terrorize, doesn’t mean they will be. This is classic defensive driving at its best. “I want to live in a bubble, where everything is wonderful and perfect (in my bubble).” I believe this would eventually lead to worse restrictions. We must not live in fear, instead arming ourselves with the knowledge that can overcome any obstacle.