Slashdot Mirror
Google Urged to Drop Images
Nqdiddles writes "News.com.au is reporting that the head of Australia's nuclear energy agency has called on Google to censor images of the country's only nuclear reactor. While Dr. Smith admits the image is about two years out of date, he also says he doesn't 'want to provide any easy assistance to anyone who wants to interfere with the site.'
Citing the precedent of the blocks of colour over the White House and Treasury buildings, he's critical of their own security, adding 'there's a small area near the middle of the site which is quite secure, but the bulk of our site isn't all that secure' and is easily visible from the road and commercial airline flights. Google has defended the technology, noting the images were six to 18 months old and not detailed enough to zoom in on people."
I think the world should get used to the fact that restricting the flow of information is going to be more difficult with every passing year. This isn't strategically-important data. If Google was transmitting a real-time high-resolution image, maybe I would agree with the AU gov't, but censoring 2-year-old satellite photos is simply unnecessary. Actually, we should rejoice that this information is available publicly, because in an age where governments can use information to attack the rights of their citizens, it is somewhat comforting to know that their secrets may not be safe from public scrutiny.
C'mon...if someone wanted to know where their one and only power plant was and Google sensored it, I'm quite sure they'd find it through some other means...lol. In the "information age" as they used to call it, secrets and closed policies just aren't feasable anymore.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
is they want nuke sites protected by legions of troops and super security, but i bet their water supply isn't subject to the same protection
Perhaps politicians are mentally challenged, if terrorists really want to screw you and cause a panic there are a million other ways to do it other than hitting a nuke reactor surrounded by armed guards
--AC
So, at first I thought that someone wanted Google to shut down its images service. Then, I read a little bit of the story and thought that Google was being asked to remove images of Australia's reactor. Then, I finally figured out that they were only being asked to censor those images. Now, I have a headache.
sig not found
If he doesn't want to "provide any easy assistance to anyone who wants to interfere with the site", then why is he publically pointing out the weak spots of their security?
Now that we can all communicate with email, the Web, digital images, and other comm tech quickly, cheaply, and easily, lots of fake "security" that we've all paid $billions (A$2billions ;) is starting to look like complete crap. So instead of admitting "we're finally busted", officials of high-risk systems like Dr. Smith, Oracle's Security Chief, and a cavalcade of American Homeland Security / Defense Department / National Security Administration (isn't that all redundant?) bureaucrats are screaming for us to "stop looking". Every country and big (and small) corporation has their counterparts. Their emperors wear no clothes, so we should just avert our eyes, and keep handing over all that cash and power. Someone get these frauds out of the way before someone gets really, seriously hurt.
--
make install -not war
Then, you find out they're being asked to censor their maps service, which has nothing at all to do with Google Images. Off the top of my head, I can come up with 5 headlines that explain this better.
So now a nuclear reactor that most people neither new or cared about and that probably had very few searches will now be looked at by 1000's of slashdotters, blog readers and surfers and probably cached and saved on a million different machines never ever to be lost. Nice job.
I bet this was one of those lame PR stunts where they say 'oh no you have to censor this' so everyone looks at it and in fact gives them more publicity - they were probably just frustrated that no-one had ever tried anything!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Don't ever even start censoring - it always becomes unstoppable.
Yay for security by obscurity. Like some terrorist couldn't get that information anyway if they really wanted it.
Not sure though...
C'mon...if someone wanted to know where their one and only power plant was and Google sensored it, I'm quite sure they'd find it through some other means.
Especially now that this story has been posted on Slashdot and hundreds of geeks just went to google to download the image just in case it does get censored.
Please. Just because you put "(C) 2005 You" on something doesn't make it true. People put copyright notices on public domain content all the time.
Bit of a contradictory position here.
If you read all the other replies, it appears that the same information could be obtained from other sources. So, the request doesn't make much sense.
However, Google IS censoring pictures of important buildings in America, and Google's arguments in this case relate to these buildings just as well. So, while they have no obligations whatsoever, Google seems to be aplying double standards: either drop the bulls**t and stop censoring any images, or start accepting and implementing requests to remove material. What they're doing now just makes them look bad.
Besides, I don't know how 18 months old pictures of secret service positions could be useful to a terrorist.
Ridiculous as it is, there'll always be someone more, just as paranoid for the perceived "protection by hiding something", crying "you have to hide my house, too" - so in the long run, anyone who's ever censored anything ends up having to censor pretty much everything.
In other words, the textbook example of a slippery slope...
Furthermore, does anyone find the quotes from Dr. Smith slightly... unreasoned?
"There's a small area near the middle of the site which is quite secure, but the bulk of our site isn't all that secure," he said.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if he's trying to censor information about the site's security so as to keep that information from potential attackers, wouldn't he be better to avoid volunteering comments like that? Isn't that single comment even more valuable to attackers than the picture itself?
I imagine a slightly mad scientist... "Now that I have destroyed the aerial photograph, you will never make it past the two guards at the East entrance and the video camera at the North entrance! Muahhahah, and good luck finding the secret entrance under the tall hedges!"
After that, the rest is easy. Since it is clearly visible, and since the design of reactors is fairly basic, you should have no real difficulty in identifying the key sections - the water pens for storing the used and new fuel rods will look very different from the block used to house the crew, for example.
And since the employee has already said that perimeter security is lousy, a recce should be fairly trivial.
What would someone need to do to cause serious harm? Well, the waste pipe will carry low-level radioactive waste only, but I don't believe it would be beyond a saboteur to hook the output into some critical input (say an air intake, or the water mains for drinking water).
In other words, they are relying not only on security through obscurity, but also security through apathy.
Were I in their shoes, I'd say to hell with what Google was publishing, I'd want to know why internal security was lousy and how to improve it BEFORE someone broke in. Google's maps are irrelevent here - what matters is that there's a wide-open nuclear facility that anyone can monitor from a public roadside (by their own admission) and can enter easily (also by their own admission).
Ask not for whom the bell tolls... When you're beating the damn thing to death with a one tonne mallet!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Or wouldn't it just be easier to, say, I don't know, secure the site?