Comments on: Why Google Maps blurring would set us back

Robotics researcher Keith Sevcik says censoring detailed images of sensitive areas, as proposed by a California assemblyman, would stunt search-and-rescue efforts.

[vikinzer]

You are indeed correct that this is a valid reason to have this level of detail, and if he were talking about blurring all of Google Maps then I would be totally 100% with you. However, he is only talking about blurring the detail for specific locations, and I don't think parking lots are among them.

Certainly parking lots at these sensitive locations might be blurred. We wouldn't know until the argument happened after this law was passed. There would still be plenty of public places, public parks, retail locations, etc. where you would have that level of detail.

I would also think that as the bill is moved forward and edited a process could be put in place for researchers through background check and secure data access agreement to gain access to a service with the unblurred photos. Since this bill is still in committee and you have a reasonable use for the data the first question should be "can my needs and the purpose of the bill both be fulfilled"? If they can then systems that allow for it should be worked into the bill. If they can't then you should begin talking about stopping the bill.

I am generally for open information everywhere, but the fact is that satellite information was reserved for government use for so long for a reason. As long as no one starts talking about blanket blurring of the detail in google earth then I'm willing to have the conversation about how to meet security needs and realize the most potential from this product. I would hope everyone else would be willing to have that conversation as well.

[ndamato99]

There's no way they could cost effectivly "blur" buildings and leave out parking lots it would take 10s of thousands of people working years to do that. What you would probably see would be that someone would submit coordinates for the buildings in questions and they put large blurred circles for 100 meters around every "Sensitive" building. That's over a football field in every direction.

[Renegade Knight]

I've seen blurred fields and open space. The problem already exists for exactly what you are saying it doesn't.

Blotting out areas of maps makes the maps less useful for all of us. It's as simple as that.

This is yet another case of a law that would punish the vast majority of us while not doing a single thing to make life more difficult for the poster child it's being proposed for.

[Endbringer]

@ndamato99

It's already taking thousands of workers to rectify those satellite images into a coordinate system. The satellites don't just snap a picture and magically know where on earth they are. They have to be projected to a known coordinate system. Computers don't do that automatically. Also, even for a small city there are many images that are taken that have to be rectified, it's not just one image.

How do you think the terrain shows up on Google Earth? Stereography is used to get relative elevations, then they have to be projected to a geoid model. Computers don't do that automatically.

My point is that there are already thousands of people working to provide that data, so blurring certain areas is not near as costly as you make it out to be.

[jean.luc.picard]

There is a very good reason not to do this. Essentially it would be putting bulls eyes on every possible target making them even easier for evildoers to find. Sometimes the best place to hide is in a crowd, in plan sight.

[van_Zeller]

good point!

[ndamato99]

That's what I was thinking. If I were an evildoer, I'd turn on google and look for all the blurred spots near my base of operations. That narrows down things considerably to what the government thinks is important.

[Lumiseon]

I still don't get why they want to blur it...it's not going to help, no matter what they say. And if they're going to say "public privacy", well, moot point there because all Google Earth does is saving the driving gas to go and look yourself. And since most are a bit outdated, it doesn't really matter anyway.

[vidanuevatx]

I'm not sure the bill is a good idea. It's good to protect government buildings and medical facilities and private schools and places of worship, but you're talking about so many places that it would probably be economically prohibitive to blur them all on an individual basis. For example, the greater Houston area probably has at least a thousand places of worship. The USA has over 7500 hospitals. It has about 100,000 public schools. I'd suppose that there are tens of thousands of private schools. If we blur schools, are we going to count the millions of day care centers across the country?

Meanwhile, should the Empire State building be blurred because it has a school in it, but then be un-blurred if the school moves out?

This law is well-intended, but needs serious re-thinking. The result of the law would be that the default for every area would be to blur it. Google could then selectively un-blur a few park areas, once it had proven that there were no places of worship nor schools nor medical facilities in them. Beyond that, I doubt that even Google would have deep enough pockets to risk the lawsuits if it unblurred anything else. After all, how would Google know for sure that a farmer had not built a house of worship in an obscure corner of his farm?

[Dalkorian]

This law isn't "well intended" at all. It's purely idiotic, another publicity stunt from a retardican who can't think about the ramifications of what he's proposing.

Let's say this passes (I can't hope enough that it doesn't, but hypothetically ...). Let's say I'm a terrorist (that's "turrist" to retardicans). I want to cause as much pain and suffering as I can and I have a rough plan, but I need images to plan out the details and of course a target. Fire up Google Earth and look for blurred images - obvious target. Use Google Earth to plan out how to stake out the target - public places are still unblurred so I have the perfect opportunity to decide which building I want to take pictures or video from - which building is tall enough? I'd want north, south, east and west images of the target, how can I get those easily from surrounding buildings without drawing attention ...

OK you say, let's just ban Google Earth entirely (or better yet, just blur all images so it's useless). Fine, now I use a helicopter, or small private plane, or public transportation to explore your city and take my own pictures the old school way. So let's ban those too, helicopters, airplanes, public transportation and all cameras (still and video). But now I can just sketch my observations, so we also need to ban paper and writing implements like pencils and pens. But I can still observe and communicate, so what's next - eyes, ears and vocal cord bans?

Why don't we just cloak everything so it can't be seen by anyone. Would that make us safe enough?

See why retardicans are retardicans now? Instead of trying to solve the symptom by hiding everything, why don't we start trying to address the problem itself. Why are terrorists terrorizing people, why are they so angry?

[Zoobie]

@Dalkorian

I missed your point because you lost credibility with the name calling; it's not an effective or rational way to participate in a discussion.

[t8]

So a terrorists only needs to find the blurred areas to know what targets to hit. Is that the outcome?

[ndamato99]

I guess the obvious thing to point out is that Mr. Anderson needs to speak with the people who make the photos.

Google does not create the photos, they just put them online. High resolution photos are created by airplane flyovers (not satellites) that take thousands of pictures which are then painstakingly stitched together and rectified to the curve of the earth by teams of GIS specialists. They're performed by hundreds of government and private industry organizations all over.

[myles taylor]

The problem with things like this is that it only tends to hinder the law-abiding citizens. It's just like a law that says you can't own a gun. If there was such a law, the people who are breaking the law would continue to own them and only the law-abiding citizens would lose their guns. Same with this. If a terrorist really wants detailed information on something, they are going to find it, blurring or no blurring.

As vidanuevatx says, where do you draw the line. The problem with these types of things is it sets a precedent that we can't easily turn back from. Then people are demanding blurring of more things. Recently there was a study that proved that terrorists do not use the internet all that much to plan attacks. People need to realize it and stop witchhunting. Cutting off the tools that terrorists use isn't going to work as they are just going to find tools elsewhere. We need to go after the terrorists themselves.

[Renegade Knight]

Clearly you git it. The books are littered with law that do nothing but punish the honest while doing nothing to solve a real problem. All in the name of progress.

[Dalkorian]

BINGO!

[K1821voc]

lol at any terrorists or criminals using Google maps as their source of research. And even more lols at the thought of blurring as an effective deterrent for their activities. I can see them now, "Oh, no they blurred out this government building on Google Earth, guess we have to find a new target. "

[ndamato99]

...and what's so special about government buildings? The goal of terrorists is to terrorize people. They might have more impact hitting a local mall.

[whois101]

Oops, the local mall... let's blur it too ! And the field where we build our crops, let's blur those too, because they might wanna put something in our food. Oh, talking about that, let's blur the peanut paste factories too, because they might poison us (uhhhh, the profit terrorists do that already, and they don't even need a picture).

[tremorfireheart]

we are suppose to have the freedom of speech and the press. This is not crying out false information to induce a panic and thus immeadiate forseeable harm. This information is not inciting others to go out and commit violent acts. They are reporting back to the general populace information that they went out to gather which is freely available to the public. They put it in a format thats easily searchable and categorizable. Why have a law that interferes with two third parties transfer of information that is in the public domain? Why live in fear any longer? It's been 8 years. Did we really let the terrorist win by letting them rule over our actions and reactions with terror? Our nation the land of the free is about 20th in line for freedom of press according to www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop08/FOTP2008Tables.pdf and about 48th according to the reporters without borders http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025 .
Freedom comes at a great cost and carries many risks. It's time that we were the home of the brave once again.
[e-mail]

[hbeer]

as much as I hate the NRA slogan, I have to agree with myles --
when maps are outlawed, only outlaws will have maps.

the terrorists win when we act from fear, and not reason.

[contentcreator--2008]

The terrorists win when they make us react to what they are doing, to compromise our liberty, our productivity, on their account. I find the full detail useful and sometimes just entertaining regularly. Once you start blurring selected locations, it is a slippery slope --- how about sports stadiums? A target, but nice to check out. How about highway interchanges? Very useful, but a potential target. How about college campuses? Target, but have to be able to check them out. Bill Gates' house?

And a helicopter sight-seeing trip is what, $100?

[man_w_balls]

I hope more Americans begin to realize the fact that we are continually compromising our liberty, and therefore giving the turrists what they wanted. They hate us because we are free! But for 230 years, we have been one of the most free nations in the world, and prospering safely. The 21st Century has been bad for freedom in the USA, and we need to turn that around by being brave instead of cowering under the security blanket of freedom-restricting legislation. We SO needed Ron Paul in the White House! I am sad.

[Sam Papelbon]

to people claiming it wouldn't make financial sense to do this: just how poor do you think google is? if they want to use their money on a pointless exercise that would create a handful of jobs, let them.

[gsekse]

The reality is that if I was going to attack a position, I would rely on my own research, not Google. It's like robbing a bank, would you plan your get away on a google map or actually walk in the place and then walk/drive the escape route. Successful planning for a crime doesn't depend on public records alone. Those that plan that way are the ones that show up on "World's Dumbest Criminals". Government makes these laws so they can "feel good" about doing "something". While I don't like guns, I believe that people should have the right to have them if they behave themselves.

[MadLyb]

Absolute foolishness.

This information has already been available...in higher resolution...with more details...for decades...for public consumption. You just had to visit your local Tax Office to get the Aerial Photography they do for Tax Mapping and/or GIS. Today, most municipalities have moved this information online for even easier access.

BY LAW, all of this information is public domain. I can go and look up your house, how much you paid for it, how much it is worth, even see a floorplan for the house. The problem is most people do not know this is available, but Google Earth makes it very public.

[Endbringer]

Most of what you say is correct, except for the floorplans. Those are not public information because there is no compelling reason to release floorplans to the public. Besides, most local governments do not keep house plans on file. Commercial buildings they keep for fire and other public safety uses, but most housing permits do not even require stamped plans.

[Len Bullard]

No, what the researcher tells you is right. This is the deal: in public safety applications we are being told to use Google because it is there. It is yet-another-populist-zeitgeist. Otherwise, we deal directly with Teleatlas (as Google does) and ESRI, and other sources of both data and geolocating services as we have in the past.

What public use of Google Maps and Google Earth implies is that to sanitize them means Google has to get out of the public safety business unless they fork. Period.

Since we pay for these services and the public doesn't, what's the right choice? Ad revenues are shrinking and Google is making up for that by increasing costs to paying
customers. If they lose them, they take a very hard hit, Mr. Google Stockholder.
So who wins this one, Mr Assemblyman?

[pbg3445]

Have terrorists ever attacked a research facility? A high-technology site?
They attacked the World Trade Center. The Pentagon. The Alfred P. Murrah building. Harrod's in London.
Big, splashy targets with lots of civilians.
This is the policy of the last eight years: indulge in a passion for secrecy, restriction, and lack of access, and use terrorism to justify it.
I've got a better idea: use Google Earth to actually find Osama bin Laden, rather than keep him around to use as a boogeyman to scare people.

[Heebee Jeebies]

The whole problem with the censorship is where does it stop. First of all everything the federal government has belongs to the people we paid for it and we are the ones that allow them to have some things they keep secret because it is the appropriate way to handle it. Some things just don't need to be public (not many things mind you). However, if the governments (federal, state, etc.) can have things blurred out then why not citizens. Why should I have to tolerate the possibly that a bugler use Google Earth to see my home, how everything is laid out around it and use that information to not only decide to target my home but to use that information to make it easier for him to do so.

Being able to see fences, dog houses, trees and shrubs, walk ways, etc. are all things that will make it not only easier but faster for him to do his work. So, if Google Earth has to blur schools and other buildings because the MIGHT be targets are some point in the future then I should be able to blur my property if I so wish.

Maybe what should happen is if a building or facility it target and bombed, etc. then they should be able to request that it be blurred. I think you should have to prove that having it visible from Google Earth means it will happen again since it has already happened once. Otherwise suck it up.

As for things like air conditioners, etc. being visible well then don't put them on the roof. If you don't want something to be seen then don't leave it out in the open.

Robert

[Voice_Of_Logic]

then the criminal will not be able to see the machine guns I have on my roof which point to my the perimeter of my property. hey, if I didnt invite someone onto my propert then they're trespassing. this way, with google maps, I can say that they've been warned, but if they claim they didnt know then lack of planning on their part doesnt constitute an emergency on mine.

[hassan_bin_sober]

The only thing they need to blur is Wall Street which I speculate may become a target rich environment!

[Voice_Of_Logic]

wow. get out of your parent's basement much?

[TV James]

heheh I like the quote about "air shafts" - Being slightly facetious, but this works both ways. Maybe if the Death Star had been blurred, more planets would have been destroyed. (Kidding - I know that they also had spies who had access to the full architectural plans.)

[whois101]

Yet another kneejerk bill. While I agree that blurring of military areas could be beneficial, and even for the key buildings in Washington, I disagree that schools, hospitals and places of worship should be blurred. That's such an overreaction beyond believe. It's treating the whole US like a war zone, by a politician that's apparently intimidated by technology, or trying to score points by some populist actions for a special interest group. Let's go back to the stone age and rule out things like radio, tv, and computers while we're at it. What's the point?