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 Smith admits the image is about two years out of date, he also says he doesn't 'want to provide any easy assistance to anyone who wants to interfere with the site.'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."
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?
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.
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.
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)