Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Blurring Sensitive Map Information

Posted by kdawson on from the blurring-the-nukes dept.

Cyphoid writes "While viewing my school (the University of Massachusetts Lowell) with Google Maps, I noticed that a select portion of the campus was pixelated: the operational nuclear research facility on campus. Curious, I attempted to view the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts. It too was pixelated. What or who is compelling Google to smudge out these images selectively? Will all satellite images of facilities that the government deems 'sensitive' soon be subject to censoring?" Not surprisingly, the same areas are blurred in Google Earth. But how about images from satellites operated by other nations, such as SPOT or Sovinformsputnik?

7 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. MassGIS by pHZero · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google Maps gets the Massachusetts aerial photos from MassGIS http://www.mass.gov/mgis

    I believe you will find they are the blurring culprits if you download the latest aerial photos done by a 2005 fly by.

    1. Re:MassGIS by markb · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right. I don't think Google is the one censoring the photos. For a counter example, check out the photos of the White House on Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth (http://local.live.com). Google's images (from a private source) do not appear to be censored, but Microsoft's (from the USGS, I believe) are heavily edited.

    2. Re:MassGIS by novus+ordo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google surely wouldn't censor it's maps on request by an interested party.

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    3. Re:MassGIS by rizzo420 · · Score: 5, Informative

      nope, it's not google... the millstone nuclear power plant in CT is not pixelated.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    4. Re:MassGIS by avdp · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the blurring probably had to do more with what's on the roof of the white house (rather than where it's located, which everybody knows), and some level of paranoia that an attacker would benefit from being able to make that out. It's my understanding they have quite a bit of weaponry up there to defend from potential attacker both from the ground and from the air (that, or I watch too many movies).

  2. details for you by r00t · · Score: 5, Informative

    This thing probably got caught up in a general order to obscure ALL nuclear plants.

    It's a really lame little plant, with barely any fuel. The white thing is a metal containment dome, attached to a 3-story or 4-story research building. It's about 4 stories tall. They give tours; you can look down into a pool of water to see the glowing blue core. It's called the Pinanski Energy Center.

    Attacking this plant would do nothing of any real interest, though some idiots would surely freak out. The radiation source is deep below ground and really weak.

    Most of the obscured area is just a parking lot. The research building extends to the northwest of the white reactor; they are attached. The area to the southwest is a parking lot for that building and the adjacent ones. The area to the northeast is a parking lot for the gym, which you can see with the white rectangle on the roof. The farthest west obscured area is a pedestrian overpass at the 3rd-floor level that runs between two unrelated buildings, the physics building (north) and engineering building (south). Most everything in the area is 4-story.

    There are far more interesting things on campus that a person could attack, starting with the dorms!

    You can find pictures on the web, including a lame attack by ABC news.

    http://www.uml.edu/maps/pinanski.htm
    http://www.uml.edu/student-services/disability/ada services/north_campus/pinanski_hall.html
    http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LooseNukes/story?i d=988778

  3. Say What? by DrJimbo · · Score: 3, Informative
    AC said:

    This is very similar to news reporters reporting in Iraq back in 1991. They were perched up on top of hotel's miles away from the battle front, and reporting the precise position, direction, and numbers of the US forces. This information, freely available on CNN gave the enemy real time reports on the US troop movement and lost many US lives because of US reporters not thinking about their actions.
    Can you provide any credible references for this claim? I had never heard this before and Google has not given me any leads.

    The Wikipedia does not mention media caused American deaths but it does tell us that of the 147 American deaths, 41 (28%) were killed by either friendly-fire or allied munitions. The Wikipedia does report:

    U.S. policy regarding media freedom was much more restrictive than in the Vietnam War. The policy had been spelled out in a Pentagon document entitled Annex Foxtrot. Most of the press information came from briefings organized by the military. Only selected journalists were allowed to visit the front lines or conduct interviews with soldiers. Those visits were always conducted in the presence of officers, and were subject to both prior approval by the military and censorship afterward. This was ostensibly to protect sensitive information from being revealed to Iraq, but often in practice it was used to protect politically embarrassing information from being revealed.
    It seems to me that the lack of troop movement information caused more American deaths than any CNN news reports. It also appears that you've been taken in by anti-free-press FUD that was used as an excuse to even further curtail objective reporting in the current Gulf War. But if you have credible evidence to the contrary, please share it with us.

    On the other hand, I agree with you that it is probably a good idea for Google Earth to be blurry around nuke plants.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin