Comments on: Q&A: California lawmaker wants to blur Google Earth

California Assemblyman Joel Anderson explains why he's behind a move to force online map companies to limit the level of detail around certain types of locations and structures.

[zextron]

Just another mediocre politician trying to gain airtime.

[Seaspray0]

agreed. But better yet, since he's a public servant, let's blur all his pictures like the one in this story.

[odeleon]

I know in Spain they blur out cars' license plates... don't know if that's the same for other places. I do agree some sensitive information should be blurred out. And yes, the wording of this bill needs to be refined.

[Renegade Knight]

I wonder what the police would say if I blurred my plate because of it's ongoing public exposure? Ironic that you can show it to the world 24/7 but the moment you capture it on some kind of media it's private.

[shadfurman]

they blur out license plates and faces and sometimes other information in streetview in the US. I've even heard that occasionally they have to blur out someone standing nude in front of their window. I don't think that protecting an individuals privacy is the same as "protecting" layout information on buildings, especially when those interested in such things could easily obtain blueprints from the city or flyover in a Cessna and take their OWN photos. Granted that might take a couple more days for planning an attack giving more time for authorities to prevent it. But I don't think the benefit outweights the censorship. But then I was also against classifying pseudophedrine as a narc just because SOME people use it to make meth, it didn't make meth go away, and now I have a CRAP load of extra paper work to do when everyone gets a cold at work. Stupid politicians. I WANT MY FREEDOMS BACK! ok I'm done ranting...

[ferretboy88]

Somethings should be blocked out. Like Troop movement and Military bases. Tons of bases in Cali.

[Dalkorian]

Until you cloak these facilities in real life, this is a joke and a bad one at that.

[ralfthedog]

We need to blur troop movement. What would we do if the terrorists knew where our troops were 6 years ago?

[bemenaker]

Because the paper maps at the gas station don't have these locations on them?

[msanto]

In fact, the ability of spies to know the whereabouts of our "tanks" and Patton's troops were used to fool the Nazis in WWII, into thinking the normandy invasion was going somewhere else.

[Dalkorian]

by ralfthedog March 11, 2009 10:24 AM PDT
We need to blur troop movement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Troop movement? Where do you find up-to-date troop movement data from Google Earth? Think next time before you post, tis better to allow others to wonder if you're an idiot than to prove it.

[batvette]

"We need to blur troop movement. What would we do if the terrorists knew where our troops were 6 years ago? "

Please. If the terrorists wanted to target US military installations in 2003 (what happened then? The shoebomber? sure you don't mean 8?) they would have had plenty of well advertised bullseyes to hit. Terrrorists avoid the military like the plague, just look at Israel.

[Endbringer]

I agree that some buildings ought to be blurred, like secret nuclear submarine bases (ala Britian) and an airstrip in Pakistan showing US Predator drones. But I also think if the local authority and building owner wishes for it NOT to be blurred, there ought to be a way to allow that also.

He's correct in that there is no need for a high-resolution image of a school layout or of a prison, but something like a City Hall shouldn't really be a terrorist target anyway. It all really depends on the definitions and other details whether this would be a good bill or not.

[zyxxy]

Unless of course your local court is located in your city hall. Ours is, along with the local police station and holding cells.

[Renegade Knight]

Actually he's wrong that there is no need for a nigh res image of a school or prison. He just can't think of the need while my job (which another state pays me to do, and which his state who pays other folks like me to do) requires that I have this kind of information. We use higher resolution than google.

As for military bases. It's the modern world. The protective measures they have taken against spy satallites that have a higher resolution than arial photos should suffice for arial photo's.

[DigitalFrog]

@renegadeknight - does your job require you to have hi-res images of schools or prisons, or does it require you to have *public web* access to hi-res images of schools or prisons? There may be a few jobs like civil engineers, architects, swat teams, etc. who may have need for such photos, but they can get proper ones from proper sources, there's no need for them to be publicly available online.

[Endbringer]

I've been using orthophotography for about 12 years at my job as a GIS analyst and civil engineer. Most of them are taken from planes and used for tax assessment and civil engineers for preliminary designs. Most local governments have aerial photos of their region that can be purchased from their local government's GIS (Geographic Information System) department. But even though most of those are available for a small fee (and sometimes even free), they are not massively distributed. There is a fine line between what's public and private in this regard, so it is purposefully made more difficult to get this type of information. It also allows it be tracked, so if some crime is perpetrated using those images the criminal can be easily tracked. With that kind of data available for mass, anonymous usage it changes that dynamic.

[Renegade Knight]

@DigitalFrog

I've found public web access to be very handy for planning purposes and issuing permits. When the time comes for more detail we would then pay for a higher resolution solution. I could care less what any one buidng does (most times), let alone the floor plans inside. But how it sits in the community, it's locaiton and access to roads. Yes.

[Renegade Knight]

@DigitalFrog

I've found public web access to be very handy for planning purposes and issuing permits. When the time comes for more detail we would then pay for a higher resolution solution. I could care less what any one buidng does (most times), let alone the floor plans inside. But how it sits in the community, it's locaiton and access to roads. Yes.

@Endbringer
I see Engineers come into my office all the time with Google earth maps. It's made their jobs easier at the planning stage. Making the vast majority of everone's lives more difficult just to stop that 1,000,000th person from having easy access is nothing more than punishing the innocent. That 1 person would just bribe your counterpart and get both better maps and floor plans. Meanwhile your job would have been more difficult for the last 20 years in hopes the 1 person in a million would be too stupid to solve their own evil problem another way.

[jtara]

You mean like this?

http://www.exec-comms.com/Pictures/Blog/secret_bunker.jpg

[ddhboy]

Oh please, the terrorists aren't nearly as vast a threat as politicians believe they are, and as pointed out in the article the terrorist would just use regular maps if they were to plan anything out, not all that difficult to find out the floor plans of a building, and that will give you a hell of a lot more detailed that an image captured by a satellite.

[Endbringer]

Oh yeah, you go ahead and try to get the floor plans of your local prison or a school. Let me know how easy that is for you.

[Endbringer]

And while you're at it, tell those 3000+ families that died on 9/11 that terrorism isn't really a threat. Go ahead and tell the families of the people who died during the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that terrorism isn't a threat; it's just a ploy to take away your rights. Oh, don't forget to tell the victim's families of the USS Cole bombing in 2000, or the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, or the ones who died in Lebanon.

[mikeburek]

What online mapping tool was used in the 1993 WTC bombing? Or Oklahoma City federal building bombing? Or the attempt at the Atlanta Olympics? What photos were current enough to show the exact USS Cole location?

Even in the mighty US military, don't we get some kind of visual confirmation of a target in real time, and not just using a map that was made a few years ago?

[batvette]

Endbringer, your appeal to emotion ploy is both immature and irrelevant. I propose we ban manned flight by all aircraft until the end of time, because of 9/11. Don't like it? Well tell the families of those who died it's unreasonable, you heartless SOBs! Terrorism- no, let's say "S*** is going to HAPPEN" again. Preventing it should not be the sole focus of all legislature and waking thought in our lives. We've been allowing these elected jerks to use those events to make laws, some have been worth it and were reasonable, many more are being revealed as mostly to make the job of lazy politicians responsible for public safety easier and not have to creatively prevent crime. Do you REALLY feel Islamic fundies are plotting to blow up a building in your town? ANYbody think this is the case? Mr. Anderson, can you say with a straight face, you are afraid YOUR building you work in is at risk of such a thing? (everyone thinking they wish it were, keep that private)
We've become Orwell's nightmare in a very short time and much of it is irreversible. I'd rather be dead than live as an animal in a cage because scared little people demanded absolute safety.
There is no damn terrorist threat, not worth all of this at least. We have state organized snitch patrols in our cities, RFID chips, nearly every draconian restraint told about in the novel 1984. With all this "keep us safe" fear mongering, we even want it. Safe is no way to live like a free man. While you would use the deaths in the Cole and Lebanon bombings to argue for restricting our freedoms, sir, as a former military man I would argue you don't have that right, because they died with the intent of preserving them.

[Endbringer]

My comment was directed toward the first sentence (clause in his run-on sentence) ddhboy wrote. "Oh please, the terrorists aren't nearly as vast a threat as politicians believe they are".

[Jonnygthedrummer]

dumb, i mean is someones goin to blow somthing up , arnt they goin to drive over there or watever no just go randomly look at Google earth an say , Hey thats cool lets blow it up,

i dont thing bluring a building is goin to stop someone, all they have to do is drive over the the physical location, unless u blur the actual building with some kind of giant LCD display , There we go , lets do that

[ralfthedog]

It would be a good way to pick targets. Look, Google blurred out that building. Must be important. Lets blow it up!

[mikeburek]

If a building is blurred out, it would get people interested and people would get many high res photos from street level of the building to show what was being blurred.

[Lumiseon]

Yet another republican trying to control more and more of crap they shouldn't. We really just need to burn the stupid Constitution already. Not like it's enforced anymore, anyway... Blurring Google Earth wouldn't do ***************, and they know it.

[zizzybaloobah]

The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and a host of other encroachments on civil liberties have been supported by both parties. Neither party cares much about the Constitution except as it can be used to keep their entrenched parties in power to the exclusion of anybody else that can't be represented by a donkey or an elephant.

[Endbringer]

What part of the Constitution is this bill ignoring? Freedom of speech? How about the part where the national government is Constitutionally mandated to provide for the defense of the country? How is it violating someone's free speech to blur a government building or a school? Does not blurring a government building that may be housing nuclear material constitute treason? Your logic is flawed and quit trying to blame republicans for what most every politician has done. Liberals ignore the Constitution as much or more than republicans.

[Dalkorian]

by Endbringer March 11, 2009 6:07 AM PDT
Liberals ignore the Constitution as much or more than republicans.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

At almost any other time in our history that would be difficult to argue, but after the last 8 years and the insufferable attacks out Constitution suffered from fuhrer bushit you retardicans took the cake and no longer are able to make that argument.

[Endbringer]

Obama, one of the most liberal politicians ever, is proposing to make America a more fascist state than Bush ever dreamed of. Control your light bulbs, control the type of car you can drive, control your bank, control the salaries of individuals, control your health care and by extension your life, control the type of energy you use, control how you protect your own property, etc. Bush screwed up big time with a lot of his terrorism policies, but he was not a conservative, he was a republican. Learn the difference.

[zizzybaloobah]

As if people who were going to break the law and do dastardly deeds couldn't get the information in some other way (illegal or not). These types of laws do nothing put an undue burden on law-abiding citizens.

[Endbringer]

So lets say your local elementary school is blurred by a satellite image. What kind of burden does this place on you as citizen?

[Meg_Whitman]

Someone has spent too much time watching Spongebob.

[Dalkorian]

Endbringer, stop and think for a moment will you! What kind of burden does this impose on your typical "turrist"? What's stopping them from the old school surveillance techniques like taking their own pictures of the buildings for later study, either from a nearby location or by helicopter or small airplane? Are we going to fully cloak these buildings so they can't be seen or photographed, or are we just going to push through more idiotic legislation like this that accomplishes nothing?

We have never been made safer by making everyone a criminal. Passing more laws to restrict us because your beloved fuhrer bushit felt like allowing 9/11 to happen to enrage us into going to war with Iraq for oil and revenge is the hight of stupidity and insanity. What amazed me the most reading this retardican politicians rant was how long it took him to invoke 9/11 (7 sentences, some of them were even complete ones!)

We should round up all these retardicans on a ranch in Kansas somewhere and keep them safe from themselves. THAT would make the world a safer place all by itself!

[ralfthedog]

If a terrorist wants to blow up a school, they will just go to rentakid (TM) and pick up a 3rd grader for the day. "We are moving to this town next year. We want to look at the school little Johnny will be attending. We are very concerned about security."

[Endbringer]

@Dalkorian

You're correct in that this does nothing to stop some criminal from just driving up and down a street and taking pictures. But I'd much rather have them go to that trouble because there might be surveillance cameras on the grounds which someone could notice and report. And driving up and down a street doesn't allow them to see deeper into the property that would normally be off limits anyway. A satellite image would allow them to see more of the layout. Blurring a school building or prison does nothing to harm a citizen. It's a proven fact that the terrorists over in Mumbai (sp?) used Google Earth to help plan their attack. Could a normal map from any store have been used? Sure. But having a good resolution color image of the area is more valuable.

And how the hell would this be making a criminal of everyone? What right would be restricted by the passage of a law like this? You need to really pay more attention to what's going on and quit using emotion to override logic.

I'm a libertarian, not a "retardican" as you like to say. I believe in the Constitution as it was intended.

[Renegade Knight]

@Endbringer

I've aleady had blurring interfere in planning a days outing off the beaten path.

Oh and blurring costs money, and creates liability in that if you didn't blur something someone thought should be blured they would sue you.. If it's too much of a PITA Google would quit offering the service.

[Dalkorian]

by Endbringer March 11, 2009 12:49 PM PDT
@Dalkorian

You're correct in that this does nothing to stop some criminal from just driving up and down a street and taking pictures. But I'd much rather have them go to that trouble because there might be surveillance cameras on the grounds which someone could notice and report.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe in England (they are having surveillance issues with cameras on every street corner), but not here in the US. Or is that next on your agenda, putting cameras on every corner? For the sake of argument, let's say that happened. How are you going to pick out the one guy with a camera who has nefarious designs out of the thousands of tourists (not "turrists") with cameras that appear to be doing the same things? How many people are you going to hire to view these tapes and only look for "turrists" and not jaywalkers or folks stumbling home from the local bar?

No, we should be vigilant and aware of our surroundings, but turning our nation into a censored surveillance police state is not the answer in part because that's what these "turrists" want to begin with - to disrupt our way of life. Right? Why should we be so willing to allow them to attain any of their goals, let alone that one?

Oh, and I should apologize for mistaking you for a bushit supporting limbaugh fan (in other words, a "retardican"). Your arguments sounded that way to me (and still do to an extent) and I jumped to a conclusion - my bad. As for the Constitution argument, I'm not sure it attempted to address an issue like this one directly, but indirectly it's pretty clear. Show me the part that reserves the right of censorship of publicly available data to the federal government, please.

[zyxxy]

The problem he is trying to address is the problem that you can completely scout an individual building for assault based on information from satellite and 'birdseye' views. Maybe not in your neighborhood, but in my city, you can get North/East/South/West views of the public school that clearly show the fire standpipes, all entrances, the fresh air inlets on the roof, and clear fire lines from adjacent buildings. There is clearly enough information there to plan an assault on the school without visiting the site beforehand. You can even determine which doors service the fire stair wells.

That is what they want to address. Do you really need to know where the fresh air intakes are on the roof? Do you really need to know the location of the fire standpipes? They could blur selective elements of individual buildings and the maps would still be completely useful as maps.

[Dalkorian]

Censorship was a favorite tool of hitler too. Until you cloak the buildings so they can't be photographed or viewed from any public location, this is just foolishness gone awry. I'd explain why, but you will first have to finish elementary school to understand the principles involved (if you have finished elementary school, I doubt I would need to explain).

[duggerdm]

Eliminating the mapping doesn't significantly reduce the risk of what you imagine. All the details you mentioned are generally available from public libraries and frequently online from planning offices. Not to mention - simply take your own digital images with a good telephoto lens from a block a way or a rented plane. Jeez don't be so unimaginative. This is a stupid man clamoring for attention using fear and misinformation - sound familiar. It should it's how the last administration operated for 8 very long years - which we are still trying to recover from and will pay for generations to come.

[Endbringer]

I seriously cannot believe some of the responses on here. How can anyone think that blurring a government building, that most likely has closed access anyway, is akin to censoring speech and press? zyxxy is correct and is at least using common sense.

Dalkorian, since I was government indoctrinated (Oh, I mean public education) perhaps I am just a little slow. So can you explain how this is censorship and is "just foolishness gone awry?"

[Renegade Knight]

Hmmm...do I need to know where the fresh air intakes are?

Why yes I do. After all some doofy could be assulting the school and knowing what they may do would help my kids know what they should be doing to increase their odds of survival. Funny how both sides of the equation need to know the same thing.

[Dalkorian]

Endbringer, I also suffer the same malady you do (publicly educated), but I'll try. From the dictionary application on my Mac at work here:

censorship |?sens?r? sh ip|
noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts : details of the visit were subject to military censorship.

You follow me there, right? We're talking about blurring images in a publicly available application (think "book", but more "modern"), which would be "suppressing unacceptable parts". Pretty clear cut to me. As for the "foolishness gone awry" comment, as I and others have pointed out we're talking about public outdoor spaces here. Google Earth does not penetrate walls or ceilings, it doesn't give floor plans or blueprints. It's just an ariel photo, anyone with a camera can do the same thing. Think of it this way - did terrorism start when Google Earth came out, or has it been around long before that? If you want to start banning anything that could help the terrorists, where do you stop? Guns? Explosives? Knives? Cell phones? Telephones? Walkie-talkies? Paper, pencils and pens? They can still yell at each other and view things with their eyes (facilitating planning), so should we make having eyes, ears and vocal cords illegal too?

Where does it stop and what do you say or do when you discover there is still terrorism in the world even after all these "precautions"?

Your flaw in thinking is in trying to address the symptom instead of the problem.

[batvette]

Endbringer, perhaps the most worrisome factor to many is we fear the government's pursuit of secrecy in its own endeavors as much or more than we fear the terrorists. If the government builds a facility somewhere the PEOPLE are allowed to scrutinize what is going on there and why. Where did all the money go that was spent on the building? How many air vents did we buy? Are they abducting people and throwing them down a hole without due process in this building? As we have seen repeatedly, it's getting less and less "for the people, by the people" and more "how much can we get over on the people" all the time.
You seem to feel it's okay for the government to deny the people knowledge unless we can come up with a good reason for them not to. I'm pretty sure it's more that they need to come up with a good reason why they should.

Apparently, as zextron has already mentioned, he wants airtime. Well, California (as well as most of the nation) is already in the toilet financially, as reflected by the "un-paid days off" in the government sector to try to keep it financially afloat. Why can't Mr. Anderson stand behind something already out there, like something to help repair the broken tax system (i.e. The Fair Tax Act, HR 25 and S 296) , instead of something, what sounds like to me, that he wrote on a bar napkin one day after work after a few brews. He'll get the same amount of airtime. Most other politicians (or the rich) don't want to discuss the issue of a fair tax. I just read the 2008 book "Fair Tax: The Truth. Answering The Critics" by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (R-GA). Great book! And no, I'm not advertising anything here or affiliated with any group to promote the book. I'm just a truck driver, struggling like many of us fellow Americans. It just explains how to repair the current tax system, and yes, we can ELIMINATE THE IRS! Stand behind this Mr. Anderson!

[Endbringer]

I, too, am for the Fair Tax. But I must say that Mr. Anderson is a state congressman, not a federal one. He cannot vote on it or anything, so why ask someone who has hardly any clout or authority in the matter to promote it?

[friartucker]

Just two quick thoughts: If a building was blurred, wouldn't that say just as strongly, "Hey, this is either a hospital, school, worship place, etc"? Second was Senator Joseph McCarthy in the same mindset with the "Prevention" of communism spreading to the United States. As a disabled veteran I am in favor of protecting the US from enemies foreign and domestic, but not at the expense of personal freedoms any longer.

[Endbringer]

Yes, having it blurred would point out that there is something there that is "out of the normal". But almost everyone of those properties will have an address and phone number the phone book, so anyone could easily find it. The whole point of the blurring of the photo is to keep the details from being see of the property, not the location of the property.

[Renegade Knight]

@Endbringer

What details? The resolution of the photo's is too low to pick out anything if you don't already know what you are looking at. If you do already know what you are looking at blurring is a moot point.

[Dalkorian]

RK, I think I get what Endbringer is stuck on. He heard the "who needs to know where the air ducts are" comment and agreed, not realizing this is missing the point entirely. He didn't see the detour sign, just followed the logical path he was led down.

Those air ducts are not hidden from public view in any way. They're not cloaked or even covered, they're open to public view. Anyone can see them from the neighborhood and make a sketch of the building (or take pictures) for planning purposes. It's what they did before Google Earth and we weren't much better at catching or stopping them then either.

[Len Bullard]

Umm... that's a bigger problem for Google than the article indicates. Google sells those map services to public safety vendors and health system vendors. If they blur out the wrong areas they impede operational use of the maps. That's a public concern and a business concern.

[Renegade Knight]

In my biz I use maps at a migh higher resolution arial maps than what Google Earth Provides. Even then someone butt naked in their back yard are perfectly safe from incriminating pixels.

As for street view. That's why they invented curtains and fences. They aren't pulling in anything that's not already public. They are just putting it in another format.

[protagonistic]

There used to be a saying when I was a lad many years ago. "California, the land of fruits and nuts". It looks like it is true. So let me get this straight, he wants google to blur certain buildings. As a terrorist using Google all I then have to do is look for the blurred buildings. Why would I care which which of the category of blurred buildings it was, just the fact that they blurred it out would make it a potential target. And you could still have a nice clear view of the surrounding area. I guess the most essential qualification to be a politician these days is that you have no common sense.

[Dalkorian]

You neglected to mention the fact that that clear view of the surrounding area would be ideal to plan out how you want to stake out the blurred building you now want to attack (mostly because it's blurred out, so you KNOW it's a "critical target"). Where is the best place to get north, south, east and west photos of said building? Where can I hang out with a camera and not arouse suspicion? Do I have to rent a helicopter for an hour to get ariel photos, or can I get enough of the roof from adjacent buildings?

[Renegade Knight]

@Dalkorian

That explains why there have been no raids, or crimes until Google earth came along. They couldn't plan their getaway...

[Michichael]

Just remember kids - terrorists don't kill people, Google maps does.

Rofl...

[man_w_balls]

More fuçking turrrist bullschit.... And I had thought they were shifting the new Public Boogeyman to be the economic problems they harp on and on about day and night?

In the 80's, and awhile before, it was the Communists. In the 00's, it's the Turrists, mostly. And now we have the "scare everyone by telling them the money is all gone and we will all starve in America" tactics.
Fear is your only God, on the radio, turn it up... Turn that $hit off!

Why did Hunter Thompson kill himself? We live in the Kingdom of Fear.

[ralfthedog]

"Why did Hunter Thompson kill himself?"

Lots and lots of drugs.

[man_w_balls]

ralfthedog:
'"Why did Hunter Thompson kill himself?"'

"Lots and lots of drugs."

Wrong. He actually proved the human body's ability to endure well beyond the limitations that DARE propaganda and the like would have us believe. Sample the prose from his last novel, named in the last three words of my previous comment, and you will see evidence of vast mental capability in top shape - not long before he blasted his brains out with a shotgun. HST was a practical worshipper of the American Dream, which died in the 90's. The kingdom of fear that the bush admin brought into reality is the antithesis of the American Dream, which is why I believe he checked out.

[aero144]

Foreign military satellites constantly take images that are hundreds of times more detailed. Why does the Russian army (for example) get to have better pics than our own citizens?! This is just the old "terrorism" trick used by the govt. to hide illegal ops from the public...as usual.

[outlaw26r]

These are not exactly real time images that google is displaying. So what illegal ops do you think the state of California is trying to hide? I mean they haven't changed the satalite images of Tal Afar since Nov-Dec of '04. I can still pick out my stryker sitting in the same spot guarding the castle as it was sitting almost half a decade ago. Plus, I'm sure the Department of Defense has a measure of control to ensure troop movements, base possitions or your illegal op that California is running are either censored or delayed until they are no longer a danger to American security.

[magicat777]

One key thing that people are missing is the fact that there are legitimate uses for a highly detailed Google Streeview. I used it to hunt for houses online. A site called, Zip Realty, incorporates it into their MLS listings, allowing you to virtually travel to the house to get an idea of what it and the neighborhood looks like. It was instrumental in helping me and my wife plan our home purchase. Additionally, we have also used it to plan trips, vacations, and parties (to make sure we have enough parking).

Go to Joel Anderson's webpage and email him with your opposition to his bill:

http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/77/default.aspx?p=email

[Endbringer]

So even though your neighborhood and the houses in it wouldn't be blurred by this proposed bill, you somehow wouldn't be able to find your dream house because of this proposed law? The proposed bill does not blur your neighborhood. It would only blur certain government buildings and a few others (which of course need to be defined).

If you take a trip to Key West, FL, how would having the school building blurred prevent you from planning your trip?

[Renegade Knight]

@Endbringer

Given I've sene empty fields blurred, I'm opposed to all blurring as it makesthe maps less useful.

Limited blurring is just a start to "hey I'm Joe Onwer and want my house blurred". They are doing that already. The law would just make it worse.

Oh and next you would have to accept blurring on the maps you purchase since the company providing it would be subject to the bill and the follwoing privacy bill. You woul have to lobby for special exemptions in a new law just to do the job you have been doing.

[JM_Brazil]

What's next, helicopters will no longer be able to fly over public buildings? What a moron.

[hassan_bin_sober]

Just another republican hemorrhoid! flaring up.