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 Smith admits the image is about two years out of date, he also says he doesn't 'want to provide any easy assistance to anyone who wants to interfere with the site.'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."
Wow, this is right up there with Sadam using CNN to get info on our movements in the Gulf wars.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
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?
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Google is just licensing the satellite image data from DigitalGlobe and other vendors. It's the same data that Microsoft, TerraServer, NASA, etc. have and is publicly available for everyone with a stamp. My library even has CDs full of (outdated) full-res satellite images of the world.
Asking Google to censor it just means that the "terrorists" will just go to Microsoft's new beta map.
Alright, all there was was a old blocky picture, and now everyone knows that "the bulk of [the] site isn't all that secure" ... great move Mr head of ANSTO :)
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.
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.
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?
The blocks over the Whitehouse and surrounding buildings is to stop people spotting Secret Service positions etc rather than building layouts.
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?
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.
Not to mention that they also have Aerial photos on the site too.
http://www.ansto.gov.au/info/00images.html
101010b 2Ah 52o
Link to satellite images of ANSTO I _think_ that is where it is. I could be wrong, but that looks more like a nuclear facility than anything else in the area. Thanks to ANSTO for providing a map. :)
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
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.
Let's review some notably successful attacks and see if we can learn something...
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.
We Australians feel left out. Every time there is a "terror" scare in, say, the US or UK, our forces switch to Super-Ultra-Crazy-High-Look-At-Us-We're-Targets-To o-No-Really-We-Are alert.
The boys get to play in our Blackhawk helicopters over Sydney and Melbourne, sliding down ropes with slung MP5s, wearing their best Matrix gear, and impressing the hell out of the news chicks.
It's all part of the great Australian national inferiority complex: we're ashamed of our "Convict Heritage" while desperately trying to convince the rest of the world that we're a 'significant first-world player', and not some minor nation hidden away downunder.
Really, the lack of terrorist attacks on Australia is so embarrassing to us that we now actually have to point out the insecure targets to the terrorists.