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 Smith admits the image is about two years out of date, he also says he doesn't 'want to provide any easy assistance to anyone who wants to interfere with the site.'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

Comments

Why just Google?

[HUADPE]

I was under the impression that the images Google used were not copyrighted. Even if Google were to block them or blur them out, what would stop a terrorist from just finding the photo somewhere else?

Re:Why just Google?

[wfmcwalter]

Some of the images used by Google are NASA Landsat 7 images, and these indeed aren't copyright. Others are USGS aerial photography and black and white USGS satellite imagery (which I think are declassified corona data) and these aren't copyright either. But google also uses higher resolution satellite images from commercial providers like Space Imaging's IKONOS platform. These are copyright (although Google seems to use lower-resolution versions of these, due surely to cost).

Anyway, the image in the NEWS.com.au article is USGS aerial photography, and the same redactions are done in the current data drop (as available via NASA's World Wind system) - so this particular censoring happened before the data got to google.

Indeed, there would be no point in censoring the commercial imagery used by google for the reactor in question, as the enemies/terrorists/Bad Guys (tm) could order the imagery themselves, presumably though some front company. So the aussies would need to persuade several vendors of commercial satellite photos, including US, European and Russian providers, to censor their images.

Note that Space Imaging don't (or didn't, at least) have a blanket list of sensitive US properties they won't photograph - the happily supplied the Federation of American Scientits with lovely images of Area 51: http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/groom.htm

So complaining publically about google is entirely counterproductive; they're just standing on their own stumps ;)

Won't work

[Donny Smith]

Google aren't the only ones.

Just today I read about this Australian company that plans to provide **live** satellite feeds (Google Earth in real time).
And of course there's Virtual Earth and a bunch of other sources.

But, if the cops one day find Google Earth printouts in some terrorist's bag, well... that won't be good for their PR.

Actually I'd be surprised if the government already didn't have Google Earth backdoor with alerts set on sensitive locations worldwide.

Hypocrites

[tbo]

If Google is willing to cooperate with China on their "Great Firewall"--an attempt to suppress democracy-related information and control the Chinese people--they can hardly object to this. Google has already demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with totalitarian governments in suppressing peaceful, pro-democracy information. Hard to see how they can draw a line now. If anything, Google's "Don't be evil" motto requires them to actively try to subvert Chinese censorship.

Australia is making a reasonable request that Google voluntarily censor a very small number of images of a nuclear reactor--images that could clearly be used for violent and dangerous terrorist activity. Aside from satisfying idle curiosity, there aren't many important, legitimate uses for those images.

Since Google has long since slid down the slippery slope, why stop now?

PUL-LEASE -- GIMME A BREAK !!!

[constantnormal]

Hasn't it been already established that terrorists are not going after the guarded targets like nuclear reactors and such, using bioweapons, captured nukes or dirty bombs and the like?

Let's review some notably successful attacks and see if we can learn something...

• In the destruction of the WTC, they used airline tickets and box cutters to commandeer commercial airlines and crash them into buildings having significant economic and human impact.

• In the London tube bombings they repeated a tactic already proven in Spain, to use relatively small amounts of common explosives to wreck mass transit facilities.

• In other parts of the world (including a prior attempt on the WTC) they have used car and truck bombs made of kerosene and fertilizer to achieve frighteningly effective results.

There is an awful lot of effort being expended protecting us from complex high-tech attacks, when the demonstrated pattern has been for Al Qaeda to use relatively low-tech methods and strike at targets that are easy to hit and achieve significant headlines. If we should learn anything from this, it is that Al Qaeda spends its terrorist money well, getting maximum effect for a minimum of resource.

What we need is more thought and less hasty action, so that we too, might be capable of effective action in return. Pointless blustering actions like this, intended to reassure the public and sustain existing administrations' terms in office, do more to aide and abet the enemy than to frustrate them. We need reason and logic as our allies, instead of keeping them locked in the basement.

Not to say that we shouldn't adopt reasonable means of securing high-impact targets, but we are ignoring medium and low-impact targets in favor of protecting the high-impact targets against exceedingly improbable attacks.

And of course the Real Problem is that it is impossible to protect everything. We must work on improving our intelligence operations against them, and surgically taking out Al Qaeda FROM THE TOP DOWN, if we are ever to achieve any sort of victory over them.

Why surgically? Because when you use a hammer to smite a fire ant, you wind up dealing with many more fire ants than you can handle. Flashy methods (e.g., large-scale military invasions) play right into the hands of Al Qaeda, becoming free recruiting tools and bringing millions of new budding terrorists into the fray.

Use covert assassinations instead, and spend more effort on attacking them in this way than on elaborate schemes to defend that which cannot be defended against every possible attack.

"When in Danger, or in Doubt, Run in Circles, Scream and Shout" -- Laurence J. Peter.

Re:Google Tool of Terror!!!

[katharsis83]

"In the "information age" as they used to call it, secrets and closed policies just aren't feasable anymore."

Really?

This would seem to contradict you:

"The Bush administration filed sealed documents with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan in the case that the American Civil Liberties Union brought, aiming to keep hidden dozens of photographs. The ACLU is seeking information on treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

The administration incredibly contends that releasing the pictures would violate the Geneva Conventions rules by exposing the prisoners to additional humiliation."
From: http://www.roanoke.com/editorials%5C28746.html

Hate to say it buddy, but even under FOIA, it often can take up to a decade to get information from the government. This is especially true given this administration's extreme interpretation of Executive Priviledge (can't say Clinton was any better, but at least he was only trying to cover up sex scandals versus real crime). John Roberts' past judicial record is also being kept from the public. For those saying that it's lawyer-client confidentiality, keep in mind who the client is when we're talking about the Solicitor General (hint: it's "We the people...").

We've a long way to go still before we reach a transparent government.

Re:Um, but we WANT an attack.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're much worse in Canada. After the London bombings, our Deputy PM was on TV saying, "We'll be next!", as if it were a GOOD thing that we'd be targeted by terrorists.

Then there was a brief uproar about how smart it was to scare the living shit out of the populace with unfounded scaremongering like that, and a bunch of terrorism experts calmly told us that nobody in Al Qaeda cares about Canada.

So the Deputy PM was on TV again, saying, "Oh yes, they hate us too! And what's more, we're incapable of stopping them! Run in fear!"

It was the most surreal one-upsmanship I've ever seen. Politics at its best.