Should tech companies hold back features to protect themselves?
After the terrorist attacks in Mumbai rocked the world, the Indian government found that the terrorists involved in the incident used Google Earth to reconnoiter strategic locations on the ground. For that reason, an Indian lawyer wants it banned from use.
According to a petition brought before the Bombay High Court, Google Earth "aids terrorists in plotting attacks." The lawyer, Amit Karkhanis, has asked the court to force Google to blur or remove images of strategic locations across the country while the case is being heard.
On top of that, the Times Online is reporting that the gunmen used "complex GPS systems to navigate their way to Mumbai by sea. They communicated by satellite phone, used mobile phones with several different SIM cards, and may have monitored events as the siege unfolded via handheld BlackBerry Web browsers."
So far, Indian officials have not asked the High Court to ban the use of those devices. Regardless, India's possible ban on Google Earth and other such bans across the world on devices, Web sites, and search results that are deemed dangerous for citizens, certainly raise a red flag.
Should tech companies hold back neat features in their gadgets or services that we would all want just to avoid providing a handful of criminals with something that may aid them in their illegal endeavors?
To say Google Earth should be banned from Indian citizens because it allegedly aided terrorists in their plot to kill innocent civilians is ludicrous on a number of levels. Regardless, it could happen and Google (and the rest of us) will have no recourse to stop it.
What could Google have done? Removed all the hotels in Mumbai from its images? Taken out each possible terrorist target just in case they decided to attack somewhere else around the world? It's getting out of hand.
This court battle highlights an important issue facing any tech company today: there are legal ramifications for developing a product that a country somewhere in the world deems inappropriate or dangerous. Sure, Google probably won't face any legal action for its imaging solution, but what does it do to the company's future plans in India? Doesn't it stand to reason that if a company's product or service is banned from a country, the chances of its entire product line getting banned are suddenly higher?
And that's where the trouble arises. If a company is concerned that one feature in its product will aid criminals and possibly lead to legal issues, it's entirely possible that that company will remove it to save itself from all the headaches of dealing with governments.
I understand that from the perspective of a business executive who doesn't want to lose revenue over a couple features, but I can't help but wonder why we, as consumers, need to suffer because of the possibility of something going wrong. Inevitably, the argument comes down to guilt and government officials not wanting to take the blame. After all, it's easier to blame a criminal act on a gadget rather than yourself, right?
So what can companies do? If they know their product is the most innovative on the market, but it could potentially help criminals, should they remove that feature or should they keep it in and prepare for the possible fallout? It's an interesting question that probably can't be answered so easily. Given my druthers, I'd like to see every product on the market feature the very best a company can provide, regardless of legal ramifications. Consumers would respect that and a company could show that its ultimate allegiance is to the customer and not the government of the country its products are sold in.
Let's just hope Google and the rest agree with that sentiment.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Ban Google Earth because terrorists used it. But wait, they also used cell phones, so we should ban those too. Oh and GPS needs to be banned, as does the AK-47's and other guns they were using. Problem is we're just being reactive and we need to be PROactive to stay a step ahead of the terrorists. What else can they use to cause terror? Without Google Earth, they'd have to use maps and photo surveillance, so we should also ban maps and cameras. Without guns they might use sling shots and rocks, so let's ban both sling shots and all rocks. Ban baseball bats and all trees while we're at it, since bats can be used to beat people and are made from trees. Without cell phones they could use the old fashioned land lines and without that they could use the old trusty snail mail, so all phones and all mail needs to be banned, in fact we'd better simply ban all paper and writing tools like pencils and pens. Terrorists could still yell at each other, so the vocal cords of all humans needs to be banned and forcibly removed, but then they could use sign language so everyone's hands should also be banned and forcibly removed. They could still invent some sign language using only the movement of their arms, so ban all human eyes and force the world to be blind forever. They could still use sounds to communicate (explosions, jack hammers, morse code), so while we're surgically removing every single person's eyes we should remove their ear drums as well, rendering the human race deaf as well as blind and mute.
Helen Keller terrorized no one. But to be safe, we could sever the spinal cord at the right place to leave everyone paralyzed from the neck down. Tomatoes never terrorize each other.
See how silly this gets? Anything short of simply killing all humans doesn't go far enough, someone out of the 6.5 billion people in the world can always think of ways to being a terrorist. Especially when you consider that terrorists don't really care if they're breaking the law or not, so these "bans" only really affect the VICTIMS of terrorism by LIMITING THEIR RESPONSE OPTIONS.
Get it? You *think* you've made the world a safer place, but in fact you've only made it safer FOR THE TERRORISTS.
Grow a brain, or at least resist the urge to prove your ignorance to the world. Please. The world can't afford this.
Dalk - holy **** kid, lay off the caffeine. Grow a brain? really? i made a simple point, that was fairly moderate, and your response was some over thought (and amazingly boring) rant on how not being proactive is destroying society? tell you what, BE-LOW ME, ill try to resist the urge blow my load in your face. Witty huh, did you see what I just did there???
i wish you stop
This will solve very little as there are MANY providers of imagery and maps. There are very few organizations have the manpower needed to revise the existing images, nor the resources to handle the various requests for blurring that would come...costs would be enormous. Additionally, what do you do about all the images posted by people in front of and around all the various hotels and government buildings of the world? Essentially what you would end up with is a banning of all images and maps related to 'strategic locations' as determined by some enitiy, and ultimately Google would just not allow access to G-Earth from India.
Taking the effort a step further, and asking the Indian government to blur or remove all such information would result in the following...Terrorists would use street maps of the locations, and obtain photo reconnaissance of various important locations at a site.
I was as pained by the Mubai attacks as I have been over any attack since the Marine bombing of Beirut, and I am disgusted by terrorist activities...they are simply the most cowardly acts in the existence of humankind. However, information is always obtainable, regardless of ease/difficulty...so does it make the world a better place to take this step? Ultimately we would have ourselves ban entire portions of the internet, all maps and many travel books books right?... Is that a good way to make sure the the terrorists can't get you? Maybe it is, except when they sit down next to us on a bus or train without much prior planning.
I am sad to see such reactions, as they are exactly what the terrorists want...a rebellion against liberty and the opportunity to make headway into a better future for mankind.
-RQ
Do we ban them also? Where do we stop?
I can see putting some limits in; the US military used to 'fuzzy' GPS signals for civilian use to limit accuracy (don't know if they still do). Maybe limiting the resolutions of available high-altitude photography is called for.
But banning technology like this outright? It isn't going to help.
If Google were as ubiquitous as Microsoft is with Windows and they were daring, they could just say that they will not do any business with countries that ban some of its products.
sharp knives, cars, electricity, fire, buses, trains, airoplane, sleeping pills, etc. I am sure the list will go on and on. How many things to ban really? Even if we go back to stone age, we will still be left with stones... large stones that can be used by criminals to smash people's heads to kill them.
The job is to convince and educate criminals before their leaders brainwash them. The lacking is in our basic education. I am sure if a criminal ever becomes sane again, he will regret his life and would like to take his own life first and foremost than to kill anyone. He will feel guilty like anything.
Proper education is the road to eradicating criminals and terrorism from the world and not by banning or killing or going to war. Those simply show that the people who say such things are themselves short of education.
- by bruceslog December 10, 2008 9:03 PM PST
- Yup, lets ban Google Earth because terrorists exploited it. And Google search, so they cannot find any information. Add Yahoo search, Microsoft Live search, and all the rest.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)And we'd have to ban GPS units altogether. Terrorists can use them to navigate. IN fact, terrorists can use phones to talk to each other.
Must ban ALL phones. Cell and landline.
And mail, with phones banned, terrorists might use mail to communicate. Must ban mail.
And speech. Must remove everyone's tongues, so terrorists cannot talk to each other. Then we can remove every persons hands, because after everyone gets their tongues removed, terrorists can use hand language. So lets remove everyone's hands so terrorists cannot communicate.
____*shaking head in disbelief*
___Stoopid Lawyers.