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.'"
Now, to stop corrupt politicians! (Score:5, Interesting)
The guy is brilliant. We need only follow his example to rid us of another pesky problem -- one that has afflicted our country several times since 9/11. Corrupt politicians.
It is a proven fact that politicians are corrupted by money. Absolutely proven!
Therefore, we should immediately ban all political contributions. Not just by fat cats, but ALL political contributions. Oh, and none of this "I'll use my own money" -- we must also ban all political expenditures as well. No campaign ads, no flyers, no paid push pollers.
Actually, that sounds like a great idea... I'm starting to believe my own sarcasm. How sad is that?
Re:Why stop online? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why stop online? (Score:5, Interesting)
You jest.
In 1941, maps of the Soviet Union available to Germany showed a major highway going from Moscow to very nearly the border. The Germans planned one axis of their invasion around that highway, since they knew that differing rail guages between the two countries would limit their ability to move supplies from Germany to the front.
Shame that that highway never actually existed. Maps of the interior of the Soviet Union were generally kept secret, even from their own soldiers, or...inaccurate, shall we say?
In other words, it's an idea that has worked in the past.
Won't work here and now, of course. It's not, after all, hard to rent a car and drive past a place to take pictures years before you hit it. Then do the same the week before to bring everything up to date with recent changes.
In other words, this is yet another stupid idea from a politician who doesn't quite understand that the djinn left the bottle decades ago, and isn't being put back in anytime soon. Certainly not by legislation.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:4, Interesting)
See now, this is an idea. Seriously.
In this respect, google earth like services would play a better role in confusing terrorists if the US can figure out from time to time from where does a cell connect.
In that knowledge, a MITM attack on their google earth could send them to attack an ambushed site.
Now THATS THINKING.
Banning maps is NOT THINKING. Thats just being an idiot.
Re:Why stop online? (Score:3, Interesting)
It was paranoia of a different type and a different era, when Great Big Scary Technology came in the form of nukes falling from the sky. Terrorists were people who hijacked planes to fly them to restricted airspaces like Cuba and use as a stage for making unreasonable demands.
Just as valid as today's paranoia, of course, which is to say: "not very." But a different type none the less. Things change, and things stay the same.
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Is anyone anyone really afraid of terrorists? Crackheads probably kill more people in America than terrorists do."
The reason they're called terrorists, is because they try to cause terror -- unreasoning fear is their goal.
We kill 40,000 of ourselves (in round numbers) in traffic accidents *every year*:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx [dot.gov]
That's approximately 10 times the current US death toll in Iraq. Every year!
Now, every life is precious, and no one should die needlessly. But it's good to keep terrorism in perspective.
Re:They can ban all maps, but not guns? (Score:4, Interesting)
Alas, "automatic assault rifles" require quite a bit more than a driver's license to get. Since sometime in the 1930's.
Most likely you meant "semi-automatic assault weapons". Which are functionally the same as "semi-automatic hunting rifles". Yes, the latter exist. Browning makes a rather good one. And it's FAR more deadly than any "semi-auto assault weapon" ever built, given that it comes in heavier calibers, and functions just as quickly.
Note, by the way, that buying a "semi-automatic assault weapon" (like any other firearm of any type) from a dealer requires a Federal background check. Which can't be passed till you turn 18 (for a long-gun), or 21 (for a handgun). In addition to whatever State and local laws might apply.
Note, further, that the last time we banned "assault weapons", we actually banned "semi-automatic assault weapons". Oddly enough, that law made it illegal to buy a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 (sometimes known as a MAK-90, it looked like an AK while lacking the defining chracteristic of the AK) while leaving it perfectly legal to buy a FULLY automatic version of the AK-47 (a real AK-47, in other words).
Re:Why stop online? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I agree with Bruce (Score:3, Interesting)
And, BTW, beer only requires about 250 litres per litre; it's much more environmentally friendly than coffee!
Re:Pro gun bullshit (Score:1, Interesting)
Some gangs will have guns, but if guns were illegal on a national level, they'd have fewer guns, and overall deaths would go down.
Guns are illegal in Mexico. They have two [wikipedia.org]-to-three [nationmaster.com] times as many murders per capita as the United States.
As someone who has had to use a gun to defend himself, I'd just like to point out that you are full of shit.
Re:Pro gun bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a nice idea, but does it actually work? Or does it just mean that when someone breaks into your house, he's pretty likely to be carrying a gun? I suspect the latter.
when someone breaks in, he will likely be carrying a gun or weapon. that's the fixed or 'given' part. he knows he's planning on something that might end in violence, so of COURSE he's bringing something with him.
the homeowner is not the fixed part, its the variable part. currently, the attacker will believe that MOST victims are not 'carrying' or don't have guns nearby. they assume they have the upper hand. THAT is the part you need to manipulate. if the laws were changed such that MOST home owners had guns, do you think the attacker is going to ASSUME the same chances - that the victim won't be armed?
that's the only part you can engineer, I think. balance of power. it sucks, but when you have a DIS balance, you need to RE balance it. at least that's my theory. and no, I don't own a gun and have no plans to; but I won't deny anyone their right to have one if they choose to. either 'everyone gets them' or 'no one gets them'. the 'no one' part is already totally impossible, so that leaves us only 1 other choice. simple when you look at it from a logical POV.
Re:I agree with Bruce (Score:3, Interesting)
The Surgeon General has determined that this substance has been found to cause swimming in laboratory animals.
Re:Pro gun bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
That's interesting. UK has a gun ban... Currently, their version of the ATF suspects that the number of guns within the country has tripled since that ban. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
Now, they have moved on to a pointy or slashy object ban (knives) despite the fact that the gun crime is creeping upward. (Though prelimary numbers for last years showed a 3% decline in shotgun incidents.)