Slashdot Mirror
Google Blurring Sensitive Map Information
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?
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.
MIT Lincoln Labs (244 Wood St, Lexington, MA) GE Global Research Center (1 Research Circle, Niskayuna, NY) Knolls Atomic Power Lab (next door to GE, formerly operated by GE)
Now it's even easier to pick out nice fat targets.
Deleted
C'mon! Now if you didn't know what you were looking at before, now you know there's a target of interest there.
It is *not* an editing artifact; Fuzzy Blob Bacteria (Fuziblobicia Bacterius) has been eating structures all over the world. I think it was even what ruined a banana and avacado that I had on the shelf. It even ate parts of my house. Termites, my ass.
Table-ized A.I.
I noticed this pixilation while Googling my old stomping ground of Windsor, Ontario Canada.
Take look at the area surrounding and including the Ambassador Bridge and you will find the resolution is quite low. (Longitude: -834'28" Latitude: 4218'44")
My guess is any 'terrorist sensitive' location is out of reach with Google Maps/Earth.
This is interesting given a recent Slashdot article. I wonder do Google limit this censorship power to just "sensitive" areas?
Curious, I attempted to view the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts. It too was pixelated.
Have you ever been there? That's how it looks! I think they built it out of Lego.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Taking a look at another nuclear power plant, the one in Byron, IL its nice and unblured according to Google http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=byron,+il& ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=42.073969,-89.280159&spn=0.012153, 0.029526&t=h&om=1&iwloc=addr so I dunno whats with the guys out in Taxachusetts, err rather Massachusetts but Illinois seems just fine with having their power plants on display throughout the whole world. Heck even this little patch of desert is nice and unblurred http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=area+51&ie =UTF8&z=14&ll=37.228688,-115.804482&spn=0.052144,0 .118103&t=h&om=1 so bugger all I dunno. Both are from Google and both are nicely unblurred. - XSS
It seems it depends on the country Here come some french examples : http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1+Universi ty+Ave,+Lowell,+MA&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=42.654781,-71.3 24556&spn=0.002253,0.006233&t=k&om=1
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1+Universi ty+Ave,+Lowell,+MA&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=42.654781,-71.3 24556&spn=0.002253,0.006233&t=k&om=1
Some german too:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1+Universi ty+Ave,+Lowell,+MA&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=42.654781,-71.3 24556&spn=0.002253,0.006233&t=k&om=1
So does only US power plant are blurred ?
Doesn't this seem a little stupid? It's like a terrorist's shopping list. Grab Google and zoom around the map. Mark blurred areas on map. Bomb area. Presto!
This is old news for dutchmen; when the latest satellite image update swept over holland last may, newspapers were full of reports with government buidlings being pixelated (uitgesmeerd ;) ).
All military terrain is censored, the royal palaces, nuclear facilities and even some corporate chemical plants. They're all nicely placemarked in Google Earth if youn want to inspect for yourself.
In Japan, just about anything "sensitive" gets pixelated.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=52.078524, 4.316125&spn=0.002285,0.004731&t=k&om=1
It's actually my neighbour :) the Dutch Ministry of Defence :)
The queen's residence is also blurred: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=18&ll=52.08 0805,4.30663&spn=0.002285,0.004731&t=k
Yeah, cos the unabomber had his own lear jet and imaging equipment. Don't discount the threats from the general public. There's a lot more of them. And some of them are more crazy than the average terrorist.
These blurred images are just Google caving into various narrow interests with either something negligent to hide from an enquiring public or its reporters [prisonplanet.com], or just pretending to secure facilities with meaningless handwaving, or both.
Or buying images from a third-party that has already blurred them out, which is very likely the actual case.
Yeah, because the security threats to facilities come from the general public which gets its aerial imagery free from these years-old databases, not from corporate, governement or international orgs with budgets for the plentiful (even cheap) aerial/satellite products with recent updates, higher resolution, GIS overlays, even realtime observations. Or their own aircraft/satellites to generate their own custom data.
So you're saying we should pay no attention to the simplest and easiest of security measures because a potential adversary could take more agressive action. That's like saying it's okay to have a sticky note with the root password on a critical server as long as you keep the firewall updated.
"Years-old databases"? It's not like the design of a nuclear power plant changes on a day-to-day basis.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Bizarrely Sizewell in the UK is the exact opposite. The area around the reactor is blurry, but the reactor is clear:
Sizewell
... the Maps.
U TF8&z=17&ll=43.197081,-77.628826&spn=0.006695,0.01 6909&t=h&om=1
9 897,-77.009375&spn=0.001787,0.003347&t=h&om=1
The original maps were bought from Keyhole, a company that Kodak used to own. In the past they only offered LandSat imagery of all Kodak buildings (15 meter), but now they've just gone to the original 1 meter and simply kerneled it. It's EXTREMELY easy to see here- check out the parking lots.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=14616&ie=
I have found it to be a bit annoying as I use features around the airport for identification for my work, and it was always nice to have an outside 'reference' which might or might not agree with the GPS solution.
And why would Kodak care about providing high resolution targetting information of their infrastructure to competitors, not including the 10,000 gallon tanks of various hydrocarbon solvents that are stored near the center of the complex so that, should an explosion occurr, the buildings themselves will buffer 80% of the immediate damage and pressure wave to prevent wanton death and destruction?
For 'sensitive' areas it's not much to ask.
Oh, and btw- No problem seeing 1m resolution here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=38.88
My point? It's not that tough to get high resolution CQQs from your local state bureau. The county mosaics are high resolution and flown 2x per year by the USDA.
Hey, can I drop a line to the Google Maps service asking them to fat-pixel my house? I have an epiphany toilet on the roof and I got to be sure I avoid awkward situations...
"Sum Ergo Cogito"
When I'm laying in my backyard I want to be sure Google well pixelate my sensitive areas too ;)
Privacy is terrorism.
The Crystal River Nuke plant isn't blurred. This is located at about 28 degrees 57'42" North and 82 degrees 41'45" West.
I wanted to see the painting on the tanks.
pulled up google maps and there it is in its pixelated glory.
Gas tank art all pixelated
comment directly in my journal
going to get their Ryder vans on top of these blurry roofs?
I dont know who provided this image to Google Maps, but you can see a nuclear power plant in full quality at Bécancour, Québec. I would say that if you don't ask Google to censor it, they wont do it by thelmself. http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=fr&q=route+de+la +centrale+nucl%C3%A9aire,b%C3%A9cancour+qc,+ca&ie= UTF8&z=16&ll=46.394823,-72.355592&spn=0.006304,0.0 21629&t=h&om=1
Yeah, and most of the buildings at Kodak are empty now, anyway.
But how about images from satellites operated by other nations, such as SPOT or Sovinformsputnik? ...are probably under closer surveilance by NSA and its buddies. And probably quite a bit of government pressure and a self-enlightened interest to stay in business to make them cooperate to discover potential terrorist surveilance missions. I think just getting someone to make a custom request for that information is the first step in creating a trail that can be tracked.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I just checked both Google Earth and Google Maps (not that they should be using different satellite maps), and TMI is clear as day. When Google Earth was first released, the first sat map did not have a clear picture of TMI. All of a sudden, the sat map was updated one day, and ever since then TMI has been clear as day.
si vis pacem, para bellum..."if you wish peace, prepare for war"
By blurring locations, aren't you just really painting a big bullseye that's more noticable than the actual location? I'm going to notice a big 1 sq mile blur, before I notice and care about some small building or what ever.....
Just a thought......some whacko would know better to case the real place than check some satellite photo that could be even a few years old....
Area 51 is still clear as a bell. I guess you can't blur what doesn't technically exist.
Security threats don't always come from groups with access to large budgets and advanced technology. Requests for information may be "red flagged" and what better way to access a satellite photo of a potential target than free online? That being said, the quality of the imagery on google maps is not up to targeting standards and the choice of blurred imagery seems to be inconsistent. The cooling towers and reactor building at Hanford are on Google, as are those at Diablo Canyon. It appears that there are a few over zealous security officials so concerned by Google maps that they took it upon themselves to demand pixelation.
My Chinese gf has been complaining for the last few weeks that Google has completely dropped all their China map info from google maps; many areas are now less detailed as well. Is this yet another concession to the Chinese Govt?
<obligatory> I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords </obligatory>
Yeah, cos the Unabomber had Google, right?
--
make install -not war
Yeah! There's all sorts of things like that. Check out the Morro Bay (CA) Power Plant. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Don't you think that's an awfully suspiciously located patch of fog? Clearly this is proof that not only is Google covering up "sensitive" images, but that the government's secret Weather Control Division is involved as well.
Hold on a minute, I think I hear a black helicopter outside...
In both the photos, the area is mostly parking lot.
What would the terrorists see if these areas weren't blurred? That there were once cars in a University staff parking lot?
This is especially absurd in the umass case, since walking around on a school campus isn't illegal.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
No, I'm saying those "security measures" are useless, and have other costs. The security tradeoff is totally not worth it.
It's like saying "don't close the barn door after the horse has already escaped. RUN AND CATCH THAT HORSE NOW!"
--
make install -not war
My neighbor's house is more pixelated than mine. Now I'm paranoid. They always did act a little weird.
Table-ized A.I.
Like I said, clearer, more current, even custom data is available cheap elsewhere.
Is there any evidence that Google maps are used to target facilities any more than are alternate services less likely to be monitored for "red flags" - or at all? I didn't think so.
--
make install -not war
The MIT reactor (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=42.360221 ,-71.096472&spn=0.001247,0.002435&t=k&om=1 - one of the largest research reactors in the US) is unblurred.
"Yeah, because the security threats to facilities come from the general public which gets its aerial imagery free from these years-old databases, not from corporate, governement or international orgs with budgets for the plentiful (even cheap) aerial/satellite products with recent updates, higher resolution, GIS overlays, even realtime observations. Or their own aircraft/satellites to generate their own custom data."
What? Are you claiming corporations and government agencies are plotting to blow up the nations nuclear facilities? I think you need to stop watching X-Files reruns.
The real people they are trying to hide it from is terrorists from Kaczynski to the 9-11 hijackers to McVeigh, none of which were rich enough to buy their own satellite.
"These blurred images are just Google caving into various narrow interests with either something negligent to hide from an enquiring public or its reporters, or just pretending to secure facilities with meaningless handwaving, or both."
First of all, how many members of the "enquiring (sic) public" really need overhead shots of nuclear power plants?
Second, Google compiles these images, they do not create them. Do you really think Google hired someone to photograph every square inch of the planet?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Isn't pixellated, it's merely overexposed to the point of showing about the same detail.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"This is very similar to news reporters reporting in Iraq back in 1991."
You do realise that the US forces didn't invade Iraq in 1991, right?
Oh, no, reading the rest of your post I guess that's pretty unlikely.
Both are quite detailed in Local.live.com.
Especially in 3D view...
The entire SUNY Stony Brook campus is significantly more blurred than the surronding area. Take a look, you can clear see where the edge of the campus becomes clearer: http://www.google.com/maps?q=Stony+Brook,+NY&ie=UT F8&z=17&ll=40.918393,-73.12839&spn=0.005667,0.0134 75&t=k&om=1
Still, this bollocks doesn't really help does it? A determined person could certainly charter a small plane and do their own photography if they wanted to, even over sites like this!
This message was scanned by European governments and contains no terrorism.
I'll just mention one name Timothy McVeigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
Also, Nuclear Power Plant's don't pop up daily like your favorite Seattle coffee house. It can take 10 years to build one, and most likely any nuclear plant you know of operating today would appear on a 5 year old map.
Of course governments are plotting to blow up nuclear facilities. What do you think they do in their war departments? What do you think we do in ours about their facilities?
As for corporations, and governments, blowing them up isn't the only thing they'd like to do. They'd like to copy them, or just learn about security, construction or science techniques. That's what espionage, corporate or government, is mainly used for. Every day. For which those orgs already use a lot better resources than Google maps.
And what kind of defense is "who needs this public info"? Aerial images are not on a "need to know" basis. Nor does obscuring them protect them. It does protect them from investigations by journalists and members of the public, who don't have budgets or even knowledge of the alternative sources. But who do pose the real, documented threat to facilities owners, as I pointed to in my original post.
Yeah, reality. Not like that Unabomber, because it's not as exciting to the oversimplistic imagination. But it does have the advantage of being real.
--
make install -not war
Except, of course, the unabomber used the postal service, but let's not let that get in the way of your brilliant argument.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I have found it to be a bit annoying as I use features around the airport for identification for my work, and it was always nice to have an outside 'reference' which might or might not agree with the GPS solution.
For every "terrorist use" there are thousands or more productive uses like yours. Blurring it out only serves to make people's jobs harder and is thus a drag on the economy.
That's terrorism. Miminal threats that cause out of proportion reactions that themselves cause more damage than than any direct terrorist action.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It's perfectly obvious that there was a temperature gradient in the atmosphere between the aircraft and the building, resulting in optical distortion of that building. Sheesh, conspiracy theorists.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
This thing probably got caught up in a general order to obscure ALL nuclear plants.
a services/north_campus/pinanski_hall.htmli d=988778
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/ad
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LooseNukes/story?
There is similar blurring (but different algorithm, not just pixelization) at the Indian Point nuclear power generator north of NYC. Possibly done by NYSGIS?
Google Maps
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
http://www.google.com/maps?q=San+Luis+Obispo,+CA&i e=UTF8&z=16&ll=35.209844,-120.853279&spn=0.007521, 0.021629&t=h&om=1&iwloc=addr
We can still see the nuke nipples of San Luis Obispo County.
John E. Amos Power Plant, definitely blurred.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
The nuclear engineering building at purdue university (where they have a small functioning reactor) is not blurred out at all.
today is spelling optional day.
With this kind of comment it will be no time before the entire USA is due to be pixelled out.
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.
So exactly how many of the 147 US deaths in GW1 can be attributed to this?
Well, 147-35-11=101, if you pull out the friendly fire deaths.
And can you find a source? Because I'm having a bit of a hard time finding one.
Just asking, since you're obviously a fucking authority on such things...
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Thanks for proving my point. Of course I know who McVeigh was. But I didn't notice any nuke plants in his Wikipedia bio. Nor did he have Google. But he did pull off a horrific bombing job.
Lots of available, cheap 5-year old maps and aerial/satellite images have tactical info, but don't come from Google.
How does any of what you said justify Google blurring their facilities, when it doesn't make any difference?
--
make install -not war
They would have seen this article:
5 2242
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/13
The USSR used to leave entire towns off of maps altogether, and they weren't that friendly about making any maps available. They remembered having been invaded, and were afraid that maps might be useful to invaders.
Google is doing much less damage to information flow than the USSR's cartographers did. They're probably doing an equal amount of good.
Curiously enough, the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant near Minneapolis is unblurred.
2 1647,-92.636139&spn=0.007361,0.014591&t=k
5 +(S),+Monticello,+MN+55362&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=45.3324 63,-93.847833&spn=0.007271,0.021629&t=h&om=1
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=16&ll=44.6
To the lower left, you can even see the waste storage containers. If you look closely, you can even see the machine gun nests. Incidentally, I visited this facility as part of a physics trip back in my undergrad years, before 9-11. I don't know if they allow visitors anymore.
Also, the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant unblurred.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1899+CR-7
It's probably not blurred because it's at least 4 years old... they don't do many flyovers of Omaha, apparently. If you go look at downtown Omaha, it still shows the new Union Pacific building starting construction. That's been completed and operational for a long time.
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
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: 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
Clear as a bell from here. http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.655361 ~-71.323929&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000 &scene=92174 MS Live.
I think there are too many sources for this type of information for effective censorship.
Anyone know what this area is?
Link on Google Maps
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
For those of you too lazy to check for yourself, here's a screenshot. I wonder how long before it's pulled.
Oddly enough, the area in Google Maps around the Catawba Nuclear Power Plant (see: http://www.nukeworker.com/) is at a higher resolution than the surrounding area (I grew up nearby) and obviously taken during a different season. At least, as of a week ago...
Scan the French Riviera and look at the blurs. Why? The Cap D'Agde is one of the most famous nudist places in Europe. Don't want to violate some noodist's privacy now, do we? The places where some of the pixellation occurs has nothing to do with 'interest'. There's sloppiness, high reflection, and likely a lot of simple stupidity and sloth that prevents some places from coming up all nice and tidy down to the shoe-lace level.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
here's the link
Check this out - tanks in Sadr City, Baghdad
. 366144,44.449798&z=18
http://maps.google.com/maps?p=&c=&t=k&hl=en&ll=33
"So you're saying we should pay no attention to the simplest and easiest of security measures because a potential adversary could take more agressive action."
No, I think he's saying that these "security measures" are not security measures at all. They're not simple security measures. They're imaginary security measures.
"That's like saying it's okay to have a sticky note with the root password on a critical server as long as you keep the firewall updated."
It's more like saying that your critical server isn't protected at all by the paper mesh screen you put in front of it -- especially since you left a sticky note with the root password on the keyboard and you never update the firewall.
And as other posters have mentioned, blurring out these areas is actually pointing out to potential adversaries that they are worthy targets. It's not even increasing security the tiniest bit; it's decreasing security.
You can try all you want to get people to hide information, but it won't work forever.
As technology gets better and better, more and more people will have access to very high resolution pictures of more and more of the world.
Your long term plans (20-30+ year) plans for security should take into account the fact that everyone will have access to high resolution photos of everything you can see from a satellite.
If they don't, you are pretty dumb.
Right now we seem to be in the "pretty dumb" category, since you seem to be saying we can't seem to maintain good security of our country without taking steps like blurring out things on maps.
The most well known nuclear power station is still unblurred.
Get your own free personal location tracker
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?
o noes!!! teh evul guvments iz blokin ma intranetz!!!
Pardon me for pointing this out, but these are nuclear facilities that are being blurred out. Would it not make sense, from the purely public health perspective, to hide whatever details that canbe hidden without destroying the integrety of the photo from whatever persons might hold ill intent (we're not even talking terrorism here, radioactive materials make bank on the black market) so that any actuall information gathering they do would have to be onsite, where the facility is monitored and suspicious activity can be very easily dealt with because they so conveniently showed up on the facility's doorstep?
What's so important about having an unimpeded aereal view of the top of a building, anyway? Or a parking lot? It's not like you're watching the images in real-time, so whatever you do get to see would be old information. The purpose for a map is to reference a location in space, not to provide intimate details of every building you should happen to look up.
This message has been brought to you by the, "BUY A FREAKIN' CLUE!" corporation.
I have no tag line
That's like saying it's okay to have a sticky note with the root password on a critical server as long as you keep the firewall updated.
I wonder which one the critical server is? I don't suppose it could be the one with a big sign on it saying, "Don't look at this one"?
KFG
I just went to the Google map for the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge where I used to work many years ago. Beautiful close up photos of the several hundred buildings in the Complex, amazing detail of the parking lots and the roofs and the fences. At max zoom, I scrolled to the building housing my first office there...my second office there....the cafeteria...the security booth where I went into the Exclusion Area (the highest secured area where the bomb grade uranium is)...down the road...huh. When you get to the building where the enriched uranium is (was?) machined and the scrap uranium reprocessed, you get a notice saying no zoom data for this area. You've got to back up into the sky a few hundred feet. Somebody knows what they're doing. They're only blocking the zoom on SPECIFIC CRITICAL BUILDINGS at Y-12 instead of all of them.
> 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?
Don't worry! Everyone knows Osama only use Google Earth. He's still boycotting Sovinformsputnik over of the Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan (Go Taliban!), and said he wouldn't be caught dead using SPOT.
Pull up the link in the parent post and Microsoft Live Maps side by side. Now scroll all the ways to the left of the Microsoft map and note where it ends on the Google Map. Now scroll all the way to the right and note where it ends on the google map. You'd think that the two sides of a two-dimensional world map would at least touch, or even overlap a bit, right? Not so. You'll notice that there's a slice of Eastern Russia that just *isn't on the map*. Even more interestingly, that part *precisely includes the area blurred on the goggle map.*
Now isn't that interesting?
There are many sights in the U.S. that are blurred. The Submarine Base at Groton, CT, White Sands Missle Range in New Mexico and several other sensitive sites. I noticed this a year and a half ago when I checked out WSMR and the sub base. I grew up in Las Cruces, NM which is 20 miles from WSMR and was stationed at Sub School for a while. Some military bases use a different method, a picture that never changes. Check out the Naval base at Norfolk, VA and zoom in on the piers, that picture has been exactly the same for 1.5 years. Yet when I check out my Mom's house in NM the pictures are different at least monthly, the angle and shadows change. I'm sure this can be bypassed in many ways but have no problem with the Govt. at least making someone work for it.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
If it is Google, they're still working on it. They haven't gotten to the University of Missouri in Rolla's nuclear reactor yet. Which has, in the not-so-distant-past, been the home of materials that someone realized were probably a little too enriched for a school-based power plant, and were helpfully exchanged for less potent versions that would allow for the same instruction.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Well... if you live in DC you can see that the White House perimeter has excellent visibility and is crawling with DC metro police, Sec Serv Uniformed Division, and plenty of undercover SS too, probably. The Naval Observatory is a larger, more sprawling facility surrounded by woods.
Not that I think this is any excuse for Google to cave to censoring, mind you. You can see the Naval Observatory uncensored in Yahoo Maps anyway =)
My bicyles
Here are some top secret sites:
THe Pentagon
Area 51
Yuma Proving Grounds Marine Base
All of this imagery is publically available and pointless to obfuscate. Google and is not a threat to national security, unless of course government entities accidentally allow sensitive websites to be indexed.
"Of course governments are plotting to blow up nuclear facilities. What do you think they do in their war departments? What do you think we do in ours about their facilities?"
Draw up contingency plans to blow up military targets? Besides, there is a difference between drawing up contingency plans that could be enacted under extreme conditions and actual 'plotting', which implies an intention to implement those plans.
"As for corporations, and governments, blowing them up isn't the only thing they'd like to do. They'd like to copy them, or just learn about security, construction or science techniques. That's what espionage, corporate or government, is mainly used for. Every day."
Right... you know we are talking about aerial photos from which you can barely make out cars, let alone the details you would need to build a nuclear fission reactor, right? I really don't think industrial espionage is what they are trying to protect by blurring out those images.
"And what kind of defense is "who needs this public info"?"
You were trying to claim they were hiding the pictures from the public as part of a cover up. I am really curious who you think is going to use those photos to undercover security holes...
"Yeah, reality. Not like that Unabomber, because it's not as exciting to the oversimplistic imagination."
Uh, you don't think the Unabomber (or McVeigh or the 9-11 hijackers) are real? Thats some serious crack you are smoking...
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
"years-old databases"
Read the copyright at the bottom of the links, dude. The pictures were taken in 2007.
I don't really mind the use of blurred out images for some things, but I think to use the mantra "better safe than sorry" too loosely is wrong. Torture a potential terrorist? Hey, "better safe than sorry". Tap the communications of innocent citizens? Hey, "better safe than sorry". Bomb a random middle easter country back to the stone age? Hey, "better safe than sorry". Ban all liquid on flights (you do know that whole London liquid terror thing didn't pan out, right)? Hey, "better safe than sorry"? I could go on, but you see the point. "Better safe than sorry" has been used way too much unnecessarily, and sometimes in a very counter-productive manner. The analogy with the firewall/server security is deeply flawed. A company has certain rights to do what is necessary within the law to protect itself from hackers. The government does NOT have really have any grounds to do some of the things it has done in the name of security. "Better safe than sorry" in that realm is a sorry excuse to take away the rights of ordinary citizens. Before I get flamed by those who think they are more patriotic should consider Ben Franklin's words when he said that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
The Millstone Nuclear Power Plant in Waterford, CT - my hometown - is not blurred at all. See it here.
They apparently missed the reactor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute http://nucleus.wpi.edu/Nuclear_Program/NRF/nrf.htm l (also in massachusetts).
Whoever is responsible for the pixelations: Thank You.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
Interestingly enough, Maine Yankee (no longer standing, which may be part of it) is non pixelated. Just down the road, I can see my parent's house, both are home and my father's and brother's boats are in the yard. Neighbors were all home too. ;-)
It appears that the post reporting that the photos are blurred before google gets them may be correct.
A quick look at the Pickering Generating Station east of Toronto shows no pixelation.
--- Bill
It shows up on birds eye maps on Windows live local, http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.65234 7~-71.325238&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-100 0&scene=92174&sp=Point.r5nx2m92pzdk_Durham%2C%20Ne w%20Hampshire%2C%20United%20States___~Point.r521mj 91ktxf_31%20Massabesic%20Dr%2C%20Auburn%2C%20NH%20 03032%2C%20United%20States___~Point.r3srwj91b5s9_N ashua%2C%20New%20Hampshire%2C%20United%20States___ ~Point.r37wmd91pm7n_1%20University%20Ave%2C%20Lowe ll%2C%20MA%2001854%2C%20United%20States___
it should work with FireFox, you need IE for the 3D stuff
Unfortunately NC State's Burlington Labs reactor is still easily viewable. I hope they blur it soon so the terrorists won't be able to know it's there.
When knolwedge is forbidden, might as well call it quits as the great Amercian expirement is over.
( yes i know this has been the case for a while.. i wonder when the rest of the country will figure it out. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Google is censoring information released? OMG, I had always thought that certain sections of the American desert were actually purple and black in colour!
if this pixelation is intended to hide the complex it does a pretty poor job...
It it was the FCC, behind it, then they would have started with the San Onofre reactor because it most looks like Boobies
The images you see on Google Earth are just an aggregate of maps strung together from various jurisdictions. If one jurisdiction wants to censor that data, I believe its up to them if they want to do so. However, if a state can do this, surely the federal government can pixelate images of one of the most classified research areas in the country. Just a thought.
At least they are helping the terrorist finding targets easily.
Seriously, how many people would have thought that the particular building was a potential target? Doing this make it a no brainer.
Need an ISP in South Africa?
I used to work for San Bernardino county. Google earth (as well as Microshaft Live) both got their images from us. If the source blurs it then google just relays the information.
for a counter source, check out San Onofre NP in California. It is crystal clear at full resolution. (Except you can't see the nipples.)
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you blur "sensitive information" in this way? I understand that this is not Google doing this, nor have I said that it is, I direct this to whoever the culprit(s) may be .If you have a single building blurred then there is absolutely no advantage to that. You have the building around it well within 100 yards to use as landmarks if you wanted to find the building, you can get a general view of the surroundings of the building from the map, and then the actual building itself I'm sure you could find pictures of elsewhere or just survey it personally as it's on a college campus.
Semper Fi
I don't really agree that the ordinary citizen has the right to all information out there. I don't understand why American citizens get butt hurt every time information is not open to them. There is classified information, and information that is available on a need to know basis all over the government. Being in the military there have been several times when I have done things without knowing why I am doing them, or why they are happening. It sucks, but you know what, I have come to accept that sometimes it is necessary.
Do you NEED to know the layout of a nuclear facility? No (well unless you actually do have a reason to know it), and neither do I. Am I afraid of putting it in your hands personally? Probably not; but I am afraid to put that information in some peoples hands.
You are 100% correct that something like a "better safe than sorry" approach can go way overboard. I don't condone atrocities like Abu Ghraib; that wasn't done for any good reason, and definitely denies individuals basic human rights. Likewise, keeping everything top secret and out of the hands of the public is going overboard. But so is letting everyone know about everything at all times. I don't think what they have done crosses any lines.
Now, I admit, being in the military I am part of something more akin to a dictatorship than a democracy, so my view point is coming from quite a bit different perspective, but I don't think that they are harming anyones freedoms or liberties by doing this. I don't think that there is any reason for anger, distrust, or the controversy people are trying to rake up over this either... just my opinion and two cents on the matter, for what it is worth...
For instance, their sample page World Trade Center. "These twin towers dominate the skyline by their height and the clearness of their lines. Currently it is the center for nearly every phase of international business...."
So not really a real-time database.
Where's the evidence that Google blurred it and not the data provider?
I have to agree with some other posts who think the true source of the images are the ones doing the alterations and not Google. The Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant near Raleigh, NC isn't blurred. Also, the White House which used to have solid color blocks covering the roof no longer does. Also as someone earlier mentioned, the US Capitol which used to be blurred no longer is. I think this is just a case of the source of the images.
Switching to Linux can be an adventure!
I didn't think they would have a picture of his underground bunker...
"Piter, too, is dead."
Also, while you make some decent points, it's obvious that you've never actually seen the full Ben Franklin quote, otherwise you wouldn't be referring to him while making your claims. So, for your benefit, I shall now reproduce the full quote, with the parts that you're missing highlighted for ease of understanding.
Also, I should note that this quote is falsely attributed to Franklin. While he was the first to publish this statement, he was not in fact the author of the publication in which it was contained.
As someone who sits in the plant every day and knows a tiny bit about the materials used, I must say it didn't take long for the initial disgust at Google censoring to be overruled by the whatever so little increase in security. A lot of those places already do a lot to keep people from taking pictures in and around the plants, only makes sense to prevent satellite and flyover pictures from showing up on the web, too.
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
Thanks, but I did read the same wiki page you did before posting: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin. And since I didn't put quotes around the statement, I will NOT be accused of incorrectly quoting when all I was doing was paraphrasing. Also, I'm aware that the attribution to Franklin is an oversimplification. Now that that's out of the way, you have failed to change my opinion that the quote is relevant. Were you trying to make some SPECIFIC point about the words you highlighted or do you want to play the guessing game? Since the rest of your post comes along as pontification, I'm surprised you leave your actual point so vague.
Frankly, I don't think government should always be to blame everytime a tragedy occurs. As to the point of blurred out images, the better safe than sorry argument seems overkill. And yes, there is a COST to being "better safe". Not everyone thinks, as you do, that the cost should be paid every time with our ESSENTIAL liberties. Have you listened to the news lately about how our attorney general doesn't think habeus corpus is explicitly implied in the constitution? Well, technically, neither are free speech, press, religion or assembly. Don't be fooled into thinking that some liberties are less essential than others -- you won't have any left to give away after a while.
Google's imagery still blurs out the United States Naval Observatory in Washington, DC. The source of the image is given as Sanborn.
That's because Lynne Cheney was sunbathing topless in that photo. Be glad you can't see that.
Arkansas Nuclear One is fully visible: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Russellvil le,+AR&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=35.311693,-93.233027&spn=0. 010278,0.030556&t=k&om=1
noobcake or noobmuffin? It is the same price...
Why is that?
Not as good as this bullseye!
The quote basically states the obvious - that essential liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly should not be sacrificed in order to secure temporary safety. An example of this would be making rallies illegal through the justification that someone attending a rally might get injured.
What the quote leaves unstated is that, conversely, non-essential liberties can and should be sacrificed in order to secure either a temporary or permanent increase in safety, and that giving up some essential liberties is necessary in order to ensure long-term safety. As an example of the former, think seatbelt laws. As an example of the latter, think incarceration of murderers. In both cases individuals are losing liberties, but neither case is an example of giving up essential liberties for temporary safety.
As to what your Attorney General thinks, I really don't care. If his quote wasn't taken out of context, then he's an idiot, but he's an idiot appointed by your democratically elected president, and confirmed by your democratically elected senate. He must be doing something right. Moreover, the guy doesn't get to make laws. He's basically an over-glorified lawyer. The only danger posed by his beliefs is that he'll incorrectly advise the president on a legal matter. However, any illegal actions by the president resulting from such bad advice would be caught and corrected by the senate and the supreme court, so the damage he can do is minimal.
That is where the troops are assembling for the invasion of Canada.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
You can walk right up to the containment building. (the white dome)
You can fondle it all you want. You'd be about 250 to 300 feet (100 meters) from the campus police though, so keep your clothes on.
If they don't care about SONGS, Three Mile Island or Palo Verde (the largest nuclear plant in the country), it's a far cry from blanket censorship...
Funny how those things happen to be blurred out, but the SCIF at Misawa Air Base Japan, a classified military facility for intercepting and decrypting enemy transmissions, and its accompanied flare 9 radio antenna, both highly sensitive and top secret and which would be very bad news if they ever were to fall into the hands of an enemy, are in clear view and high detail along with every other military base that I've ever looked at. These same military bases often refuse visitors to their website a map of the base for "security reasons," and yet you can get on Google Maps and print out a full roadmap of the base, get directions through the base, and view all the buildings on the base, even the ones that aren't supposed to officially exist. Personally I would prefer if things like this were pixelated as well.
Oh noes, Osama is on his way...
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
(Morro Bay power station, referenced above, is not a nuclear plant)
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
It is one of the clear heralds of the demise of the US system.
Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.
--Britannica.com
when businesses regularly caves to the government interests, it is a fascist state.
Damn that's a fine shot. Being non-vertical, it even shows the reactor's service door.
The irregular octogon to the above left is a large auditorium attached to the physics building. The building with the white rectangle on top contains the swimming pool. The police are under the pedestrian overpass to the left.
Supposedly the core got redone in 2004 with low-grade uranium. Previously, it was using a very worn-out core of high-grade uranium.
BTW, there is an undergrad nuke program. UML is pretty decent for engineering and science, particularly the plastics engineering program. Non-nerds are segregated on the "South Campus" several miles away.
I was able to get to the 100 foot scale for the Canadian nuclear reactors.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
The plant just south of Byron, IL is clear as day. The only obstruction is the steam cloud from the colling towers.
Look at FE Warren AFB in Cheyenne WY for an example -
all of the silos are to the east of the city - and notice that only low res imagery is available. Even for bases where the silo are LONG (40 + years) deactivated, like in upstate NY and vermont, it's the same.
(look to the east and west of
where there were Atlas silos, deactivated in the 1960s.)
or here, NE of sturgis, SD (part of the Sqdns assigned to Ellsworth AFB
though this area - part of the same vintage as the upstate NY/VT missles (Atlas') has higher res imagery: (this is a silo site that's a museum, south of Dyess AFB in Abeleine, TX)
Google Maps (and I presume Earth) has blurred a lot of things, often nuclear sites, corporate R&D facilities, and a lot of schools that do research with anything nuclear, chemical, or the like. I noticed this a year or so ago, truth be told it's not a bad idea. Although, is it making picking a target (without knowing the reason) easier?
MEF
Keep your fantasy world studded with unwarranted insults to yourself. I linked to just the kind of reportage I pointed out is the real problem this fake security restriction is designed to interfere with. And I won't continue to dignify your gibberish somehow finding terrorist vulnerability in imagery you describe as too blurry to make out cars, so useless for corporate espionage.
You've got nothing but incoherent fearmongering, and you're mad at me for refusing to feed it. I won't bother even slapping it down any more. You've got all the fear you can eat all to yourself now.
--
make install -not war
Moderation -1
70% Insightful
30% Overrated
Eeek! TrollMods who can't argue or reveal their identities must have a Google Map of my post, to attack it so, er, effectively! Everyone take cover and grab your ankles, here they come again!
--
make install -not war
That's funny, the Northern Hemisphere is as green as the Southern Hemisphere, though only one is in the middle of winter!
--
make install -not war
It's been this way for a while. General Electric's (former) headquarters in Schenectady, NY has been blurred out for a very long time. In the past it looked like they just used a lower zoom level even when you were zoomed all the way in, but now it looks cartoon-ish and obviously done on purpose. Just scroll a little bit the right to see how clear the surroundings are (also kinda cool is that the surrounding area to the north has some images that were taken during the winter and some in the summer, a partially frozen Ballston Lake looks weird). I believe they used to make turbines for submarines at this plant, but they've torn down several buildings on this plot and laid a lot of people off, I don't know what goes on there any more.
Nearby is KAPL (Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory) here, and the GE Global Research Center Headquarters just up the road. They're both islands of blur.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Sterling+S t,+Hamilton,+On&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=43.261128,-79.9219 64&spn=0.00336,0.008497&t=k&om=1The McMaster University Reactor is there in all its short round glory. Are Canadian reactors just not worth protecting? What if some terrorist decides to blow us all to hell? It'll be your fault Google for putting this sensitive information in the hands of the enemy.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
The stuff that Google chooses to blur is very, very strange.
As you pointed out, certain sites that you would think would be blurred, like Millstore, aren't, and there are some sites that are blurred, for no particularly apparent reason.
I've stumbled a few times across sites that were pixelated, but I can't for the life of me come up with a good reason why, or who would put them on a "censor me" list. I would really like to know what their criteria are for blurring sites -- is there some sort of DHS master list? Or do they do it based on requests from local governments? There's zero transparency to the whole process, so we'll probably never know what drives the decisions.
I think the blurring must be done by the aerial-photo or sat-photo providers, because sometimes there are sites blurred on one services' images (say, Google Maps) but not on another (Yahoo's), or vice versa. Sometimes there is stuff blurred on Google Maps and not on Google Earth -- they're not even consistent within their own services.
In particular, I think this railroad bridge and small hydroelectric dam in Lewiston, Maine, were both heavily censored on Yahoo, but totally clear on Google Maps' satellite photos. This isn't even a secure location -- you can stand on a sidewalk on a bridge on a main road and see everything there is to see there (and the whole reason I was looking at the site in the first place was to geotag a photo).
I'd really like to see some sort of transparency or accountability in what sites get censored and why, because as people begin to depend and expect data like this in the future, it's going to become more and more inconvenient to suddenly fire up your map service, only to find that whole regions have been mysteriously "redacted," like Janet Jackson's nipple.
I'm fine with blurring sensitive sites (places where overflights and conventional photography are already barred), if valid reasons exist for doing so, but to do it without published guidelines just seems like it could lead down a dangerous path.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If there's a conspiracy, they forgot to blur out the nuclear power plant for Orlando. Perhaps the owners of the other facilities asked Google to blur them. Seems like a nuclear facility would be a good thing to make an exception to the rule for.
Now I'll just sit back and wait for someone to shame me for pointing it out so "they" can go rush to blur it.
Amazingly they do not blur out the Marine Base at Camp Pendleton or the adjacent Nuclear Power Plant... hmmm...
You wanted a corporate hero you could idolise and devote your life to. Now you have to put up with whatever your corporate guru wants you to know.
Well, in the example I was talking about, you can look at Yahoo's and decide for yourself. It looks suspiciously intentional to me, because it's a blob right in the middle of a lot of high-rez imagery that's suddenly pixellated, centered right over the bridge, but I suppose there could be less nefarious (but seemingly less likely) reasons.
i ne&trf=0&mvt=s&lon=-70.22285&lat=44.097109&mag=4 (I hope this link brings it up correctly)
+ maine&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=14&ll=44.10127,-70.22727&spn= 0.045795,0.107288&t=k&iwloc=addr
Here's Yahoo's (apparently censored) version:
http://maps.yahoo.com/index.php#q1=lewiston%2C+ma
And here's Google's, as close as I can match it:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=lewiston,
It's interesting to note that Google's source for the images is the Maine Office of GIS. Yahoo's doesn't list a source that I can see, but the photos look dramatically different (they look like they were taken during the summer or late spring -- hence, green -- instead of the winter or early spring / mud season of Google's).
The "censoring" in Yahoo's takes out not only the bridge and the Maine Hydro plant at Great Falls, which is the only even halfway "strategic" target in that area, but also a whole lot of the industrial buildings on the Lewiston (east) side, which if memory serves are mostly abandoned, with one shoe factory. On the Auburn (west, left) side, most of a city park is obscured. They're applying the blur tool rather liberally, if that's what they're doing.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And now the information that near the end of Jan 2007, one Cyphoid (IP such and such) has spent quite some time Googling for nuclear facilities in the US of A is on file and will be kept indefinitely.
I just checked the Navy/DOE site in Milton, NY where they have several operational nuclear reactors (I used to work there) and it's not blurred out at all. Check it out. 43 2'25.92"N 7357'16.30"W
Always remember that you're unique, just like everybody else.
Epiphany toilet on man's roof!
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
One of the largest Nuclear power plants in europe is available : here Its Ignalina NPP in Lithuania
I wonder if there is a difference between US sites and European sites?
I know that our local nuclear power plant isn't smudged out. Go to google maps, and input 'borssele, nl'; the nuclear power plant is the structure just to the north-east of the village of Borssele. The large white round structure is the reactor dome, with the turbines in the rectangular annex. The smokestack to the northeast of that is for the coal-fired plant on the same grounds. Zooming in gives plenty of detail, no smudging at all
The next closest plant in Doel, Belgium (just outside Antwerp), on the other side of the Scheldt estuary is also visible in full detail. As is the research reactor of the Delft Technical University.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
The submarines base part of Bremerton Naval in Washington is blurred. The museum ships are not nor is most of the Hood Canal.
I used to work at a UK government weapons facility, AWE, that isn't even slightly blurred, weapons manufacturing, massive conventional weapons storage ... all there in full colour from the google maps site.
s ton&sll=53.098145,-2.443696&sspn=12.55008,28.43261 7&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=51.365297,-1.145024&spn=0.009726 ,0.027122&t=h&om=1&iwloc=addr
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=alderma
Surprising level of detail, way more than I ever expected. Even the well hidden (from the ground) Burghfield site is perfectly visible, with its Trident storage.
stupid, now terrorists know where to look, just find the blurred spots in google maps.
Fair point. So what do we do in the meantime? (And these are not satellite pictures, they're ariel pictures.)
Right now we seem to be in the "pretty dumb" category, since you seem to be saying we can't seem to maintain good security of our country without taking steps like blurring out things on maps.
lol! You say it as if it was the worse possible thing that could happen (and they're not 'maps' either.) Will you be sitting down with the grandchildren in 30 years time recounting "Say kids, do you know that there was even a time when google had to take steps like blurring out things on maps! Imagine! Boy, I'm glad we've left those dark ages behind, it was inhuman!"
I still don't get the point in blurring out sensitive locations from Google Maps, or any map for that matter. The current reality is, if you blur it, it's probably something important. Even if I don't know what it is, I will atleast know that it is something that someone doesn't want seen. The end result is that nothing is prevented, but targets have become easier to identify. Of course the blurring makes it more difficult in the planning phases of an operation, but any advantages gained isn't really that great. The information is still public domain. Even the complete removal of such information (not possible in this case) does not offer much. In any security system, obfuscating (or in this matter, simply hiding via blurring) information is no security at all.
I checked several reactor facilities that I am familiar with and none of them were blurred. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to confirm this. (Three Mile Island, Pottstown-Limerick, Indian Point, etc).
Maybe the conspiracy theorists can give it a rest and realize that they probably just didn't have any better photos to put up, or maybe they updated their database to one that had a lesser quality photo? Do you seriously think that they comb through every little piece of data they get in an update package to make sure it's better photo quality than before? That would take infinite Indians sitting at Infinite terminals.
This just in, A database server that usually receives a moderate amount of traffic in a dark datacenter somewhere in Langley, VA exploded today. The cause? Excessive usage due to the sudden increase of suspected terrorists in the US caused by millions of people searching for various nuclear power plants and other high profile terrorism targets because of a debate over map pixelation.
in a later article:
Bush has officially added 'Extremist Pixels' to the 'Axis of Evil'
Just "enhance" it like they do in the movies. Draw a rectangle around the area and click the "enhance" button, I guess, and it will clear it right up. At least, that's the way I've always seen it happen :)
RP
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
Map.
No pixelation that I see up to highers resolution.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
So I looked on Google Earth for my local nuke plant (Seabrook, NH power station) and it was blurred. Everything around it is crystal clear, but the plant is pixelated. Then I checked out Nellis AFB outside of Las Vegas. SO clear you can count the fighter jets on the tarmac, including the ones that used to be there by their oil slicks. I fond this funny because when I was in the Navy we used to look at CLASSIFIED imagery and count ships in Russian ports. Now I can jsut go to Google Earth. Albeit the imagery is outdated, but it kind of makes the whole intelligence biz less of a mystery now. Ah, the old days...
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Checked the Google Maps on our (Finland) nuclear plants. We have our installments on two areas. And both of them have a better quality map than the surrounding area! Large parts of Finland have a blurry maps where even larger single building can be distinguished.
4 1174,21.443424&spn=0.044186,0.115356&t=k
6 661,26.351395&spn=0.047871,0.115356&t=h
See this, nuclean plant in Olkiluoto
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=13&ll=61.2
And this in Loviisa
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=13&ll=60.3
The sharp area is square, about 15 kilometers AND THE NUCLEAR PLANT IS THE CENTER !
Now, this sounds as a conspiracy...
There is a difference in protecting key area and censorship, Do you think your the only one looking at Google maps?
A lot a crazy Fucks are looking at it all around the world and the satellites don't belong to privately owned companies, they are GOVERNMENT, so they can do what the hell they want with the pictures.
If you wish to have unobstructed pictures, build yourself a satellite and launch it, then post the pictures, don't be surprised if a missile takes it down or you get thrown in prison for spying though.
Frankly, to even have the pictures there is stupid, they should keep them out of the web entirely.
$ geo-map -s1.5ft -ats2 42.654651 -71.32454
[not smeared]
$ geo-map -s2ft -ats2 42.654651 -71.32454
[smeared]
Google uses "Globe Explorer" aerial maps taken on 4/9/2005.
At least their censorship doesn't include blurring out anything based on obscenity.
One last shot, clown, for the edification of anyone reading your bullshit posts.
I advise the NY City Council's Technology committee on matters including shooting down bullshit "security" lies that have tried to censor public info and imagery of facilities from fiber networks to subway tunnels to, yes, nuclear power plants. We have gone toe to toe with bulshitters peddling fear to cover up ways for the public to examine the facilities they're supposed to be securing physically. And we have never seen any real threat increases actually justified by redacting public info already screened by the sensible publishing security process developed outside the hysteria of the entirely counterproductive Bush Terror War. But we have seen the ability of the public and even government overseers to investigate and question real problems get blocked on flimsy excuses.
So you pull you hands off your ears, stop ignoring the citations of real security process I'm offering, or just shut up and let people like me do our job actually securing you and the facilities that can threaten you.
Damnit, the depths of denial and projection you ignorant piss-pants security crybabies infest on Slashdot is absolutely disgusting. Terrorists might have already conquered cowards like you, but the rest of us have lives to lead in a free world. It's a shame we have to drag you along with us, but that's how freedom works.
Don't expect another clue from me again, because you can't afford the bill.
--
make install -not war
For example, the Reed Reactor Facility isn't.
As others have mentioned, it's probably the data source they happen to be using.
Seriously. HAM operators have already launched radio relay satellites in the past; and there's nothing preventing us from doing something similar as a grassroots movement. We may even be able to read some imagery in real-time. By licensing the image stream and database similarly to Wikipedia (cc-by-sa, gfdl, ...) we'd stay true to our open source credo and spirit. Much better than the crippleware commercial offerings of Google and others anyway! Competition and verifiability will keep them honest as well.
Let's just make sure to have the main satellite operation center and a few relays in countries that don't promote censorship; perhaps on a pacific island, in a desert etc... Oh, and a few reflecting surfaces and other defensive means to protect against chinese killer satellites would be a good idea too.
Financing this is would also be quite easy, I suppose. How about selling news agencies and TV networks priority slots to cover a regional crisis, wars and other events in near-real time; something they won't get from commercial operators even for big bucks?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
That kind of paranoid thinking leads to real problems. A simple rule should be, that if it is visible from a public space, such as the publics' airspace, then it shouldn't be censored. Simple, direct and legal. Otherwise, what you often get is a population of citizens that is more ignorant than your enemy is.
Classified and need to know are very important when it comes to operational details of the military, such as tactics and capabilities, but when it comes to fixed buildings and locations, it is a good rule that if it is visible from an unprotected especially a public area then you shouldn't assume that you are fooling your enemy simply by censoring public discourse. In fact, it is a dangerous assumption to make.
As for whether it is a violation of my rights to keep this information away from me, no it wouldn't, but it would be a violation of freedom of expression to prevent someone from taking a picture in public. Such as from a bridge in New York or any number of other public places that supposedly do not allow pictures to be taken. I understand walking into a secure facility the need to leave your camera phone at the door, but on a public right of way (land or air) or from a public park preventing people from recording something that is visible (without any penetrating radar or otherwise intrusive detection) is a clear violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution.
You've got this all wrong fellas! No attempt to disguise these reactors, it's radiation fouling the cameras. No problem. Del
....In the old Soviet Union, road maps (yeah, like the kind you get at the 7-11) were considered classified documents.
There is a difference in degree, but not much else.
Welcome to the Brave New World, kids, and the best part about it is that we did it all to ourselves.
Regards;
Type White House into Live search and the rooftops of all three buildings (old office, white house, treasury) are all blurred. Goto Google Maps and you've got clear images. 'Tis a shame we can't gawk at the Anti-Aircraft I very much hope is up there.
"Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
Censorships is useless, it took a minute to find the lat/long of the containment building is at
42.654596 N, 71.324487 W
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=budapest&i e=UTF8&z=18&ll=47.478812,19.058779&spn=0.002252,0. 007381&t=k&om=1&iwloc=addr
This is the educational reactor of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics, it is not pixelized.
If you look at the United States in Google Earth, you'll notice that Massachusetts stands right out on the globe as a high-resolution patch. This is because the Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS) maintains high-resolution images of the entire state, and Google Maps/Google Earth obtains its data for Massachusetts from MassGIS. I can't find anything specific about why these sites are pixelated (the UMass/Lowell one is almost certainly not a sensitive site), but I would imagine that it would be an effect of state or federal homeland security legislation.
I know of a retured mid-level employee of a US intelligence agency whose house has been erased from the sat photo on Google Maps. Not pixellated, jut "grassed over." So when looking at his street, one sees a vacant lot with trees surrounding a house-sized grass/dirt area. I really can't think of any reason for this. Could the thinking be that a potential adversary might look him up on Google and then give up attacking because his house is missing? Or maybe he had installed a very large anti-government or anti-Google message on his roof...
Check out Flashearth.com The UK intelligence agency in Cheltenham is very clear, while Google Earth has a very low res image. Google Earth has very clear images of nuclear plants in England and South Africa though.
"Have no fear for Atomic Energy" - Bob Marley in Redemption Song
Congratulations, three posts without responding to any point made. Instead nothing but strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominems. But if you really believe Ted Kaczynski doesn't exist in reality (as you said earlier) and we should ignore basic security policies that pose no real restriction on the general public just because a sufficiently well funded group could bypass it, go ahead and believe what you want. And if you want to claim I'm fear mongering while you claim China is about to launch an all out strike against our nuclear power plants, well I don't really give a damn.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
well, a DMCA letter would be enough (even if it would prove wrong in court) do deter anyone from mirroring old images.
And a subpoena under menace of terrorism charges will take down any website with other sources of satellite.
Say goodbye to the free world, unless you can afford it.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)