Calif. Politican Thinks Blurred Online Maps Would Deter Terrorists 597
Hugh Pickens writes "California Assemblyman Joel Anderson plans to introduce a bill to force Google Earth and similar services to blur images of so-called 'soft targets' like schools, hospitals, churches and government buildings to protect them from terrorists. 'All I'm trying to do is stop terrorists,' said Anderson. 'I don't want California to be helping map out future targets for terrorists.' Concerns that detailed satellite imagery and photographs available on Web services could help terrorists plan attacks are not new, with reports that terrorists have used such imagery to carry out attacks in Iraq and Israel, and an Indian court is considering a ban on Google Earth following reports that its imagery played a part in the Mumbai terrorist attacks."
"Security expert Bruce Schneier recently wondered what other things legislators might consider banning to prevent terrorism: 'Bank robbers have long used cars and motorcycles as getaway vehicles, and horses before then. I haven't seen it talked about yet, but the Mumbai terrorists used boats as well. They also wore boots. They ate lunch at restaurants, drank bottled water and breathed the air,' wrote Schneier. 'Society survives all of this because the good uses of infrastructure far outweigh the bad uses, even though the good uses are — by and large — small and pedestrian and the bad uses are rare and spectacular.'"
on other news (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians have called for a ban on cars since they are used for bank robberies. They have also called for a ban on cellphones since terrorists have been using cellphones for communications. More at 11.
Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in the world would you want to tell people, "These fuzzy-looking buildings are the ones we really care about the most. Targeting these would cause us the most grief"?
Either you want all the details fuzzed or none of them. The address of a building can be deduced pretty easily once you've pointed it out to them on the map. From there they can get public records of building plans or do their own surveillance planning. Why narrow the search to the most vulnerable or most valuable targets for them?
churches? (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? you mean the supposed virtual-landlord of those churches isn't powerful enough to protect his own property?
why not pray for protection? REALLY test your faith - put it on the line and see where it gets you. if your churches suffer from terror targets, well, its the will of god and who's to argue with that? ;)
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't California running out of money, spare electricity capacity and (most importantly) fresh water? In terms of imminent threats, I'm surprised terrorism is even on the horizon.
Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, think of it this way.
"they" could look up the address in a phone book, we better make publishing the address of the schools (or other buildings) illegal.
Of course nobody will go to school since it's illegal to give out the address.
Somehow I'm thinking "they" were able to find targets before google maps existed.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep. (Score:3, Insightful)
or, "Well, let's blow everything up, one of these blurred out buildings *must* be the school!"
Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism is todays excuse to raise taxes. ( for the kids was the 90s ) Not surprising at all that they are doing this.
Re:Yep. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you get the "clever" ones:
Terr1: grab the map! ..you - take these crates to the blurred locations. We'll blurr them some more, this time in real life. Ha ha ha!
Terr2: Hey, WTF, its blurry!
Terr1: Ok. You, you, and
Terr2: You are SO evil, master.
Read: DUH! make it OBVIOUS what the targets are by blurring them. Only a Californian Cretin could come up with this.
I've got a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we just ban terrorism instead?
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:blur California Assemblyman Joel Anderson's nam (Score:5, Insightful)
If he really cares about California he should blur his name on the next election ballot.
decaying orbit (Score:5, Insightful)
Dumb idea (Score:2, Insightful)
So now when terrorists look at a map they can more easily identify potential targets because they are blurry.
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or even better:
Terr'st1: Damn, India just banned Google Earth to prevent what were trying to do..
Terr'st2: And that affects us sitting here in Pakistan how?
Forbid books as well! (Score:2, Insightful)
And the CIA world factbook, and the US constitution while we are at it.
Also, the bible seems to stir up the terrorists pretty much, lets forbid it too!
Hey, also, the TV series "24" should be marked as munnition with export controls so that the terrorists cannot prepare themselves to what a CIA operative does!
Shall we go on?
Re:Cough Up Some Hard Evidence, Buddy (Score:5, Insightful)
And all I'm asking you to do is show me the increase in terrorist attacks since Online Maps have become available
We had one terrorist attack on US soil so far this century that cost almost 3,000 lives. Meanwhile, 45,000 die violently on US highways every single year, and another half million die horribly from cancer.
Our politicians are not only gutless cowards, but they're STUPID gutless cowards with no sense of proportion whatever.
Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have mentioned, terrorism is the new bogeyman to
1. to keep people distracted from domestic issues
2. fund more military and/or homeland 'security' spending
3. justify more idiotic legislation like this one
I'm not afraid of Terrorists. I'm afraid of the idiots who believe that Terrorists are our biggest problem, thereby keeping these jackasses in power.
Re:Welcome to California!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Dumbest asses ever. All of them. Republicans. Democrats. Whatever.
Your Governor was on This Week last week (or maybe it was the week before last?), and he said, TWICE, that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
So I think he agrees with you.
They can ban all maps, but not guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians have to be the stupidist creatures on earth.
Maybe we'd have less terrorism if we banned politcians.
Hey, terrorist were *reading* maps to plan terrorist attacks. Let's outlaw reading!
But if you dare say "Maybe we shouldn't put automatic assault rifles into the hands of anyone with a driver's license", then the gun freaks go ape-shit.
Why is it that they'll ban and outlaw everything, except the obvious?
Secondly, if someone was a terrorist, wouldn't they know then to attack anything on the maps that are blurry?
Oh, my head hurts. Stop the planet, I want to get off.
Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, think of it this way.
"they" could look up the address in a phone book, we better make publishing the address of the schools (or other buildings) illegal.
Of course nobody will go to school since it's illegal to give out the address.
Somehow I'm thinking "they" were able to find targets before google maps existed.
"They" were. Humans have fought each other for all of known history. Only recently have there been technological means of reconissance. Reconissance managed to get done before there were satellites and online maps or computers. Even if this map-blurring were 100% effective at its stated purpose (my bet is that it won't be), all it would accomplish is the removal of one potential method. Unfortunately, there are many potential methods. This is just a feel-good worthless measure at best. At worst, it's an excuse for closer state control and regulation of online services -- anyone with some sense has known that politicians have desired that for a long time now. If it's like so many other things, all they need to do is wait for a good enough excuse.
For anyone who thinks this will accomplish anything, I say to you that it's the height of hubris to assume that you are so clever while your enemy is so stupid. Many needless deaths and military defeats have resulted from this sort of thinking. If you're not a strategist and don't understand these basic things, is it so much to ask that you refrain from making strategic decisions? The reality is that if some criminal group really wants to wreak havoc and if they don't give a damn about their own lives and are willing to die in the attempt to do so, there's not a lot you can do to stop them. At least not without destroying whatever freedoms we have left, which is what any truly effective measures would do. I didn't cause this to be true and I don't like it either, but we seriously need to work with the reality of the situation if we are to understand or accomplish anything.
I think we forget that you're a lot more likely to die by being struck by lightning than by being hit by a terrorist attack. I'm so tired of the level of cowaradice that this particular issue reveals. Our ancestors (speaking of the USA) realized that there are things that are more important than life itself, such as freedom, which is why they were willing to go to war to fight and die for those things. Personally, I'd rather keep all of my freedoms even if that meant that my chances of dying in a terrorist attack were increased 100-fold. For those of you who think that's an extreme position or an unwise choice, I have a question: if not for something truly good and wholesome and wonderful that fills your life with purpose, such as the freedom to be who you are and live your own life, what exactly are you living for that makes you so afraid of death, especially a particularly unlikely death? If you have them, what kind of message does your cowardice send to your children? That you should give up everything that is sacred to you for any fear or any bully who comes along? No wonder you are so afraid of dying; the breath in your lungs is the only thing about you that seems truly alive.
Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, so if we don't identify this complex of buildings with a football field, two baseball diamonds, swimming pool, large parking lot and sports team mascot painted on the 50 yard line as a school...it doesn't have to be blurred?
Re:Why stop online? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not afraid of Terrorists. I'm afraid of the idiots who believe that Terrorists are our biggest problem, thereby keeping these jackasses in power.
Is anyone anyone really afraid of terrorists? Crackheads probably kill more people in America than terrorists do. Terrorists are dedicated enough to this to commit suicide in the process of doing it. They are not going to be deterred by the small amount of extra work necessary to survey a building rather than consulting google maps. All this does is narrow down the list of targets and piss everyone else off.
Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (Score:4, Insightful)
"identified on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school, place of worship, or government or medical building or facility"
Ok... so by "government facility" is he including property that is owned by governmental agencies, but is leased out to private entities? Because otherwise, the ONLY major US terrorist target since 1995 didn't make the list.
Re:Now, to stop corrupt politicians! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this guy seems corrupt --- just stupid.
Re:They can ban all maps, but not guns? (Score:2, Insightful)
You are mistaken.
Automatic guns of all types -- rifle or otherwise -- are currently regulated. And they have been for *seventy* years. Most people (including the NRA) have no problem with this.
Please educate yourself before spreading misinformation. Especially if you plan on calling someone else stupid.
Thanks!
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing is... only americans have ever targeted american schools...
Well its not "Funny", its interesting how "attacks on schools" are such a cliche against foreign terrorism, when its just never ever happened that way, maps or no maps.
Re:Cough Up Some Hard Evidence, Buddy (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, they're quite aware of proportion.
Most politicians are not stupid. They're just acutely aware that most of their votes come from people who are.
Being seen as strongly anti-terrorist at a time when America is At War (on terrorism) - believe it or not - actually nets popular support.
Political office is one of the most insecure jobs a person can hold (imagine if you had to campaign around your workplace to keep your job every few years - regardless of how well you actually do your job) - they have to be seen doing something, and actually fixing complex problems would take too many terms, require way too much bipartisan support, and most likely not be understood by most of the population. Even worse, since fixing real problems usually requires some sacrifice (usually financial) on the part of the people, it's practically a guaranteed way to get "fired".
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
A more effective plan would be to build big underground bunkers, and not let the children ever come out.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is that the level of intellect that Joel Anderson demonstrates is about the norm for politicians. I'd trust a sharecropper first!
Re:churches? (Score:4, Insightful)
God has never rewarded stupidity or laziness.
If you think most religions', let alone Christianity's, meaning of "faith" means "lazy, let-God-do-everything, don't have to do anything ourselves," then you appear to know very little about it.
Protect His own property? Sure. Ever wondered how the Bible survived with so many world powers trying to extinguish it during history? Or, for that matter, the Christian faith in general? How many religions do you know of that survived through even just Rome's occupation of most of the world?
But I've never heard, and I have studied the Bible, anyone claim that a protestant church building is somehow specially protected by God all the time as though it were a "holy" place....
Re:Why stop online? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, stuff like this is what we used to poke fun at the Soviets for back in the good ole' Cold War days when Regan was prez and high schools still had gun target practice as an extra curricular activity. One of the things the US prides itself on is the open and free access to public data and the freedom to publish it. Maps are one of the key centerpieces that we measure our open society by...
Guy's and idiot and should be forcibly ejected from the country.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:5, Insightful)
That mentality existed through the fall of the Iron Curtain. When I lived in Europe in the 80's, a friend of the family worked in military intelligence (an oxymoron, I know). He couldn't give a lot of details, but one of the classic stories he'd tell was about Soviet military training exercises--back in those days, they wouldn't even tell a convoy where they were going. Their standard operational procedure was that only the commander would know, and he'd be in the first vehicle in a convoy. Any time they needed to turn, they'd drop off a soldier at the intersection, and he'd then direct everyone else and get back into the last vehicle of the convoy. This would be repeated over and over until they reached their destination.
Now, when the intelligence guys wanted to find out what was going on, we'd simply ask the guy at the intersection. He, predictably, would say that he couldn't tell them, and they'd reply that of course they knew they weren't allowed to follow the convoy, and that to ensure they didn't, they had to know which way the convoy was going, so they could go a different direction and not get into trouble with their superiors.
With that impeccable logic, the soldier would generally point out where the convoy was headed, allowing the intelligence guys to speed off in that direction...
Re:Why stop online? (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1941, maps of the Soviet Union available to Germany showed a major highway going from Moscow to very nearly the border.
The Soviet Union continued to obfuscate maps available to civilians up until its demise. A friend who lived there in the '70's commented that he wasn't supposed to take pictures of bridges and the like, either.
I was viewing Moscow the other day on Google Earth and thinking what a wonderful world we live in. An open world, more free than we were back then.
I'd like to think that the US isn't going to adopt the same kind of silly things that their old enemy did, which didn't work at the time and will work even less well today.
Re:They can ban all maps, but not guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:churches? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree with Bruce (Score:1, Insightful)
plants consume oxygen when metabolising the sugars they made in order to grow more.
they produce more than they consume though.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd think that at least one politician would suggest that the US stops conducting black-ops missions all over the world.
Oh wait!, wtf am I thinking? - surely that couldn't be a reason for 'terrorists' to attack you; most likely they're trying to steal all your apple pie!
Re:Why stop online? (Score:2, Insightful)
When CA politicians can... (Score:1, Insightful)
stop running their state into bankruptcy and stop trying to micromanage the daily lives of their citizens, THEN and only then should they be allowed to open their mouths.
Re:Now, to stop corrupt politicians! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree with Bruce (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why stop online? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we just blurred all maps, the terrorists couldn't even find their targets!
We're thinking along the wrong lines. Why not just outlaw looking at maps with the intent to commit terrorism?
No, Because terrorism is already against the laws. Creating ancillary "use laws" just helps the government battle non-terrorist activities.
Owning fertilizer is not against the law. But if "using fertilizer in a terrorist act" becomes a crime, an oppressive government could go after people who own fertilizer they want to censor. Intent can be sold by a sharp prosecuting attorney to an average people jury, even when its not true.
If anything in the last 10 years, learn from how many laws have been created to fight terrorism has been used against terrorists vs. outspoken citizens.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be under the impression that a retreat covered by delaying actions is not a long standing and highly effective traditional Russian military tactic. Letting the invader take a large chunk of territory is actually key, because it means that they will have a nice long supply chain largely unable to find adequate shelter or supplies to survive the winter. They just let 60% of the enemy forces die a painful death between November and April, then march through and slaughter whatever half-starved, demoralized and poorly armed survivors weren't fortunate enough to succumb to the elements like their comrades.
Driving the Russians back to Moscow by October is just a fancy way of losing miserably. Just ask Napolean or Hitler.
A guess at translating: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Calif. Politician Thinks Blurred Online Maps Would Deter Terrorists"
In plain English, this may be: "Calif. Politician was paid by competing map companies to try to place limits on Google."
Re:Why stop online? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why stop online? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah because, you know, terrorism is all about finesse.
Re:I agree with Bruce (Score:4, Insightful)
"Yes Moneypenny. I'm to eliminate all free radicals."
"Oh! Do be careful James!"
Re:churches? (Score:3, Insightful)
ob simpsons quote: "Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder."
if there was a true god, why would he 'appear' with such different ideas and commands to the various peoples of the earth?
if you think about it, none of the god stuff makes any sense. think globally instead of your own local religion. they can't all be right and most (if not all) have to be wrong. yours might be one of the 'wrong' ones.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why stop online? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, those terrorist-controlled missiles accurate to 1 meter have really been a problem.
Re:Lame... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah... I'm pretty sure that even with NO map i could still find a school, just drive around for a bit and I will find one.
Or, like, find the school's website and look at their address there.
In fact, why even blur them? It would be sufficient to just de-list these things from map services, it's not like they find schools by looking for school shaped things, they just search the map for schools.
From what I understand of the intent of this bill, nobody expects blurring potential targets to significantly hinder a terrorist's ability to find the place. Rather, one of their main concerns is the high level of detail one can get from services such as Google (for example) that provide you with multi-dimensional and detailed views of these buildings. Being able to virtually look around the entire outside of a building can give you a lot of useful information about all the entrances/exits, elevator shafts, or other, very specific targets of interest that might reveal some low hanging fruit if you're a terrorist looking for an easy target to do a lot of damage.
Don't get me wrong, I personally think that this bill wouldn't really make a significant difference with how many other options there are to find publicly accessible information, or do some first hand research, on these buildings. However, I have at least a certain degree of understanding for why lawmakers and citizens would be uncomfortable with the staggering level of detail and information that is so readily available from these sources right now.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because terrorists would never think that it might just be scarier to TAKE OUT THE SATELLITES and thus deprive commerce of it's ability to rely on them to get anywhere.
I mean seriously how many companies rely on GPS either to make sure workers are doing their jobs, or to get them to their destination? Nevermind governments using them for similiar purposes.
Now imagine if it went off all at once, say the day before Xmas or some major time when it would be expected that a lot of people depending on it for, say, deliveries suddenly had the 'lights turned out' on them?
Seriously our society is so dependent on so many things that our best bet is to simply not worry about it and move on. If the terrorists were really as big a threat as the gvmt tried to make out, then they'd have sleepers working to get the classified versions of those blurred maps to plan their targets anyhow. And honestly who has seen that level of organization out of them? If there was, they would've pulled off a much bigger set of acts than one silly set of towers. Why not just go after a half dozen bridges across the US, or a bunch of dams? Or a building in every major cities skyline? I mean each of these would be easy to find, wouldn't need these 'Google Earth' maps, and would have far more of a psychological impact on whichever towns they were done to. Shooting/bombing/gassing a couple of schools? C'mon. Your children have a greater chance of being molested by a teacher than being killed by terrorists at school. Hey, maybe we should ban teachers while we're at it!
*snicker*
Does it really fucking matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this asshat actually think that you cant fly an airplane into a building that is blurry? :P
I think this guy just wants to create a law where politicians and wealthy people have their homes censored from google map like sites, so that they're protected from YOU and not terrorists.
You're poor, and thats more of a threat than any supposed "terrorists"
Calling attention to targets (Score:3, Insightful)
All this will do will be to paint giant bullseye targets on all of the locations they want to "protect." Potential terrorists will see that the area is blurred out, investigate it on foot via spies and "sleeper agents" to plan their attack (which will produce much more detailed recon than some crummy single-frame Google Map satellite image).
If they're close enough to attack then they're close enough to reconnoiter this information for themselves anyway, and trying to "censor" it just shows them what we are afraid they will attack. Stupid measures like these are drowning our economy in opportunity losses -- if it goes through, some poor sap at Google is going to have to waste his days blurring out little bits of the map in a totally vain attempt at some hick senator's backwards notions of security.
Seriously, Congress, leave espionage to the people you appointed to carry out such activities. Meddling in things you don't know about is asinine.
Helping terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are we so scared of doing anything that might "help terrorists"? If you install a drinking fountain and a terrorist takes a sip, you just helped a terrorist. If you write a software program downloaded by a terrorist, you just helped a terrorist. Many of you reading this have held doors open for terrorists. Things that help everybody help terrorists. And trying to prevent helping terrorists usually means being unhelpful to everybody. "I don't want California to be helping map out future targets for terrorists" is the kind of thing idiots worry about.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:3, Insightful)
Odd... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a bit odd that no one has yet to comment on how the only attack in the US in the past decade, or longer, was one on government structures of strategic power, or that Bin Laden himself explains the attack as targeted at American government not women and children.
Years ago I would have said anyone fearing impending bombings in malls and schools by terrorists are idiots who've been subjected to false information scaremongering from sources such as Fox News. These days, there's just no excuse.
If anything, be fearful of the schools' dumbing down of our kids, because it's actually been happening for quite some time.
Re:I agree with Bruce (Score:3, Insightful)