Slashdot Mirror
Google to Blur Sensitive India Sites
theodp writes "Citing unnamed officials, the Times of India is reporting that Google Earth has agreed to blur and distort Indian locations identified by the government after security concerns were voiced by the country's president. This includes total blurring of locations like government buildings, as well as the outlines/building plans of key facilities. This came about after a recent meeting between Google technicians and Indian officials."
Google Earth has agreed to blur and distort Indian locations
I thought the US government took care of that already, around 1838?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
You can call me crazy, but this sounds like an interesting idea. Sure, it's not the best, but in a country like India, it makes sense. Glad to know Google will listen to a government that doesn't give harsh threats as a welcome.
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
my house is sensitive infrastructure. When can I meet with a google technician?
I'm not saying I am afraid of it happening (I'm not that hysterically moronic, yet.) but it seems to me that the premise of "Google must blur this building because terrorists could somehow benefit from already slightly blurred photos of the outline of the building." applies equally to my house - "Google must blur this area because burglars could use the pictures to plan an escape route along the back of the garden which is hidden from normal view."
The last thing I want to have to do is put an opaque roof over my greenhouse shrine to Peter Krause.
So does Google bow to the whim of anyone who requests obfuscation, or just governments? I'm pretty sure that this decision fails to maximize shareholder value.
tide of free information. The little dutch boy approach won't 'hold water' in the age of ever increasing amounts of data. Data that wants to be free, or freely sold to the highest bidder. What should be happening, and probably is, is that such photo services' data should be used by those that want to hide things, ensuring that they have done their hiding correctly.
If you want to be sure that nobody steals your identity, don't give it to anyone for any reason, or better yet, always pretend to be someone else. Same applies to sensitive infrastructure. The problem with trying to hide information is that you tell people where to look more intensely. This simply puts a big target on those areas for local spy work. It doesn't take much to find out what you want to know about most places, if they aren't hidden or protected with the same efforts as is Area 51. Even if Google blurs the pictures, China won't, nor will any other government with a space presence.
I think the whole thing is either a ruse, or just another example of people thinking they can regulate the Internet or its uses.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I dont want some idiots planning to get on my property.. how come governments get this right but individuals don't?
It's a fair question. Or is an individual just worth crap?
Note, I'm libertarian so actually I dont think anyone has the "right" to tell another what to blur. Maybe they should charge a fee for it?
Isn't this sort of like walking outside naked and asking people not to look at you. It was already available, now we all know it's _going to be_ censored. What if the way-back machine actually recorded google maps, you would have little blurry pin-pointed areas to KNOW ARE OF GREAT CONCERN TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
How stupid. Do you think the CIA isn't drooling over the exact locations they don't want made available? Or... every single intelligence agency on earth for that matter. So hard to believe they're going to ID sensitive areas already photographed.
---
Sensitive areas? ewww.
Ace
Architecture and layout of sensitive sites is legitimate information to want to keep secret. If India wants to keep it under wraps, fair enough.
You don't know what words mean, do you? Go do some research. Come back when you can clearly define "right" in this context and "libertarian" in any context.
I don't remember there being a right in any country anywhere that says you have the right for people not to look at you (or your property) except in special circumstances (i.e. bathroom, INSIDE your own home). Everyone has the right look at what they want that is in public view. It just so happens that google has a program and technology to see from a larger distance. They are only letting you use their telescope to look at what they allow you. If you don't like it....get your own telescope. I don't see what the big deal is.
I put trying to modify world geography to make a buck pretty high on my "what counts as evil" scale. That's Bond-villian level there.
I think this is the truth behind all this histery coming from governments directed at internet companies which try to make information freely available (or available in a less-restrictive way).
I somehow think that this situation is analogous to other governments trying coerce Google into providing their user's personal details or removing content that is legal under US law, despite being illegal in other countries (e.g. hate speech).
Governments are losing their power and they're not liking it. This time Google decided they could drop them a cookie or something, you know, just to show some good faith. I'd prefer if they didn't blur anything, though - would make me respect Google a little bit more (but I don't think this will make them automatically evil or anything like that).
So what's going to prevent someone from asking a local person where the building is and casing the outside for a few weeks? Or going to the library to examine historical records and pictures? While Google may be THE PLACE to locate information, it's not the only place.
Too late. I already have photos! Take 'em while ya can.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
They should just paint giant "BABY FOOD FACTORY" signs on the roofs of all their sensitive goverment buildings.
VOTE!
Terrorists will just ask their computer to "enhance"
It's not like you have any rights as an individual or anything.
http://flickr.com/photos/russnelson/369951380/
and
http://flickr.com/photos/russnelson/369951376
(with links to **Yahoo* photos).
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I did a Google-image-search the other day, and what do you know: some of the images from Japan were heavily pixellated in rather sensitive areas!
sig? Oh, that sig...
Now all a terrorist needs to do is scour the maps for blurred spots, or automate the process with DSP, and you have a nice little map of everything the Indian Government considers a security risk. And of course, nothing is to stop a terrorist traveling to these locations with a nice high-res digital camera.
Face it: The buildings are there, you can't blur them out in real life. If you want security through obscurity then disguise their real purpose and don't partake in silly exercises such as this that actually draw more attention to them.
This isn't about security. It's about being able to say that you've done something about something.
In this case something very important about security. This is what politicians do to profile them self. It really doesn't matter what they do and what they do it to, but at the moment "security" is the cheap way to do something. Mostly because it's so damn hard to prove that the measures are ineffective. It's impossible to prove that blurring some images *didn't* foil some terrorists plans.
Being able to say that you got google to do something that you wanted them to do, is just an added bonus in the "look how important I am" hat.
TC - My Photos..
http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html
Aparently, if your building was built after 1990 it is protected by copyright. I wonder how Google could or would monitor that?
Jesus Saves
How long it'll be before large numbers of businesses paint advertisments on their roofs and parking lots? The more people use the service the more the planet is likely to start looking like one large web page. It's already happening in a small way but I'm guessing there'll be an explosion of businesses taking advantage of the free advertizing. Then does Google demand they pay up or get blurred?
Huh ? Do they realize these satellite and aerial photos (high-res areas are actually photographed from planes not satellites) can be freely and relatively anonymously purchased by anyone from companies such as NAVTEQ ? Blurring sensitive areas in Google Earth/Maps is not going to stop "evil" people from getting access to unedited photos...
Aim those nuke at the blured spot :p
To me, this seems like a wonderful present to potential insurgents and external enemies alike. Instead of having to scout out facilities and find out where and what they are, all you have to do now is to target any area that has been blurred out, cause you know that whatever it is, the Indian government doesn't want it hit. What a nice present.
lets bomb it!
now terrorists wont even need to search the maps to identify which buildings are "key" governmental structures. they just need to look for the blurs!
Bomb the blurred areas. Duh!
Really, this isn't any type of security measure at all. Humm, don't ya think they might have the data on this already? It's not like you move buildings around.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
There goes my plan to find the dude who took my programming job and punch him/her in the chops or make him/her eat a hamburger.
Table-ized A.I.
Google targeting plugin I figured Pakistan would pay good money for itl
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
. . . paint a big sign on your roof that says, "This is not my house."
"If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
I've said it before and I'll say it again: a blurred image on the map will tell everyone that there is something interesting there, be it some big bad uu aa terrorist or some other intelligence gathering agency.
Shouldn't India be complaining to whomever provides the satellite photos to Google? Otherwise India has to talk to all providers separately, like Windows Live Maps and Yahoo Maps separately, instead of intimidating...I mean talking to...the actual source.
I wonder if http://homepage3.nifty.com/furumizo/gmaskd_e.htm can unblur them.... Providing that google used the same technique that Japanese Porn industry blur thier pictures... hahahahaha
But, seriously though... If a country wants their sensitive parts hidden from the world, they have to contact Google and inform them about it.
So, if I'm reading it right, soon Google will know about all the secret (or not so secret but important) facilities of all the countries in the world that want it altered? Well isn't that just great? After all the secrecy the goverments of the world are trying to implement for centuries, now they all will tell it to one company? And who can guarantee that the secrets will stay that way? The next step would be Google tax - wanna blur it baybe? Well, pay up!
Anyone here for a friendly lobotomy, discount family prices?
Eric: "What're quantum mechanics?"
Rincewind: "I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."
If it were me.. If i wanted to hide something. Instead of blurring it... I'll make it more obvious... lolz
It would be very easy to identify sites to be bombed... just go for heavily blurred areas.
I can see a US defense powerpoint presentation with "proof" of wrongdoing of India, arrows pointing towards blurred sites...
After all, if you have something to hide, surely it can not be good!
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
That's not the point. I am sure that NAVTEQ and the other satellite imagery companies are frequently in communication with people from various three-letter organizations (FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security). A business request to NAVTEQ for high resolution images of some government facility in India has the opportunity to draw more attention an investigation than an anonymous access to Google Maps/Earth from an internet cafe in Pakistan.
My other first post is car post.
If I were a terrorist who wanted to attack India, I would bomb the hell out of some place that appears blurred in Google Maps. I really don't see the point of doing this.
To do list for Windows
You may argue extent to which this will deter terrorists from blowing up innocent people but it certainly doesnt help them, right?
Combine that with the fact nobody genuinely needed to know layout of those sensitive places and we are better off w/o those high res pics.
End of the case.
Yes, information wants to be free etc etc. But Governments are elected and companies aren't. Governments are sovereign and hold unquestionable power given by people. Somewhat contrary to the USA, some people LIKE their governments, especially when it does something good, instead of supplying the citizens as consumer-sheep to corporations and exploiting them as tax payers for the benefits of some rather than all.
Hands up who thinks google really sent managers instead of technicians.
... another one of those gotta talk about Terror rah! rah! rah! articles.
Yes. This one is excruciatingly dumb and a no-brainer because there is nothing
right now to stop people from "walking" with their mouse all over the globe
and checking those super-secret installations out before they blur them.
In fact, I've been "personally" to Diego Island, the top-secret US-base smack in
the Indian Ocean. If you want to "stake out the joint" get the exact coordinates
from Wikipedia's article on DG. I've also been to Socorro Island of the coast of
Mexico, an island on which the Mexican Navy operates a base. They were out on the
docks drinking Tequila and smoking weed. At least that's what I think they were
doing because you can't really see through the sombreros. Again you can get the
coordinates from Wikipedia.
Nothing to see and hear here exact more of the same old mantra: Terrorstorm!
Terrorstorm! Chemical Attack! Nuclear Fallout! Rah! Rah! Rah!
and we genuinely do not need to know the layout of the sensitice places of paris hilton.
It's like playing whack-a-mole against every source including blogs and online photo album sites.
And besides, it's just security through obscurity, and we all know very well how much that strategy works well.
You can keep secret a small password, you can't keep secret the outside structure of a whole building, that any plane / sattelite / hot-air balloon / small probe / home made autonomous mini-glider with a webcame stuck on it / etc... could see. Google is listening to a government that is controlling most of the (outsourced) IT infrastructure of Google's home country.
I think it's wise not to disturb the sleeping Tiger in those circumstances.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
India still has laws prohibiting photography in "sensitive" areas including airports, major dams, power stations, waterworks(!) etc! Blurring on google maps falls into the same category - It makes the average joe feel more secure and makes him feel that the govt is actually doing something about security.
I'm sure that the security apparatus in India is fully aware that blurring "sensitive" sites will have no impact on terrorists and such-like. It does give the politicians brownie points for being proactive!
The rationale is very similar to that behind the banning of fluids on many flights.
Also, since google has blurred its maps on the US' request, not doing so for India would definitely rankle many people in India. Google chose the safe way out and did what India wanted. I dont think doing so will affect thier business in any way, but not doing so would have run them afoul of the Indian govt.
wow google bows to censorship!
I DEMAND they blur my house.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
The British, too, have expressed their concerns to Google, and Google insists it takes them seriously. http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/1044 5
And this homeland security expert believes the issue is worthy of discussion ... not only because his son is about to be deployed to Iraq.
http://stephensonstrategies.com/2007/01/29.html#a1 093
Just add fuzzy logic to your smart bomb and the blurry buildings are no problem at all! -- No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
How exactly is it possible to cite unnamed officials?
I guess its better than China, which as far as I can tell, is totally clone from closeups on both google maps and local.live
Perhaps not all of the buildings to be blurred are blurred for safety reasons? What if India is conspiring to hide Saddam's Missing Chemical Weapons! *le gasp!* >.> . Or maybe its just some politician's house who doesn't want people peeking inside to see what his TV is. :P
Or maybe India's real secrets aren't being hidden? Use the blurring as a smokescreen. The blurred ones are targets, yes, but not the ones they REALLY don't want looked at. By actively hiding many things, and informing people of it, they are keeping peoples attentions on the blurred places. Not on the sensitive locations purposely not blurred, as to keep it low-key.
Or maybe its 4:57 am, I haven't slept in at least 20 hours, haven't had a decent sleep in a week, and my mind is screwing with me and making me see clever conspiracies where there is really just faulty logic and politicians just playing the Terrorism game.
"blurring doesn't increase security" messages. The location of such buildings in any country is not a secret. The goal is to make figuring out further details, such as the exact dimensions of the buildings, a little more difficult. Everyone but /. realizes that getting sensitive data is not impossible, but that does not mean you go and put it up online and make it easily searchable.
They do realize that people can see the buildings by just driving near them, right?
Now that Google has opened the doors, the Govt babu machinery in India will start identifying "sensitive" areas - which will eventually cover most parts of India. As google clones images to blur them, someone is going to "discover" that New Delhi suddenly became an Island :-)
Our Babus can wipe out the Himalayas if they had their way.
Jade Goody's house will also be blurred?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
You can overlay images with more accurate pictures. Even download 3D buildings! Are they going to blur those too?
It's like erasing street names so a potential evil doer doesn't know where 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is.
Oh yeah? Then blur this! -- SIGFING. Except on BSD where it's SIGBIRD.
Ah yes, because terrorists can't buy the map data themselves...good plan.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wait. So now, if *I* use Google Earth, here an America, the information Google's providing me is censored to please India?
Jesus. Even their censorship in China wasn't that evil. This is far, far worse. When can we expect Google search results here in American to be censored to please foreign governments?
Taiwan had very same concerns (due to it's aggressive neighbor PRC) and Google simply shrugged off their requests. Amazing what double standard Google applies to "national security" based on the size of the perceived market.
If you can't see the roof from the street, and you can't fly over them you can't see the roof.
Ask any soldier what the most important and defensible position is in a building and they will tell you it's the roof.
It's also where most of the mechanical systems are.
So you blur the roofs and now no one can see them
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
From next year's FA: Official sources said Google News would distort reports by adding bogus sentences where none existed or masking certain aspects of a story. This could be done without attracting attention to such news items, which range from Amnesty reports, Chinese Government leaks, reports of military failures, nuclear power disasters, and activities of high-profile politicians.
Paid Q&A/Research
And this is why, like any self respecting would be world overlord, I constructed all my bases underground - with access being from secret lifts with entrances hidden on er... whatever those roads that are cut through mountains are called.
Oh dammit... now I've gone and given the game away (again)...
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Google purchases their information from a third party. Any spy, then, could just purchase that data from the original party. What is it about this concept that seems to throw off counter-intelligence?
Of course, you realize -- this is like painting bulls-eyes on buildings, making them easier to identify by location. Blur one, it's an obvious target. Blur a group, you've just given militants a clue to the general area, so I surmise they'd be more tempted to simply carpet-bomb the area.
...
That's what I would be looking at this as, if I was an enemy of that state.
Seriously, governments need to be thinking of 'hiding in plain view' and not drawing so much attention to themselves these days. The US has already mastered much of this with underground or covered facilities
sending google mail demanding to be added to the blur list?
Any luck?
I think it might be fun...
"Well my house is blurred... can you just imagine what I do in there... buwahahahaha!"
"Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
Most of the responses in here seem to assume that people already know where the buildings are / details are visible from outside / its security through obscurity. What the Indian govt. wants to hide here are the layouts and security stations within buildings like the parliament. Its not a question of whether the terrorists already know where the parliament is - they do ! But, I guess the govt. doesn't want them to know the exact layout, where the security posts are, which of them are armed, etc. This is a perfectly legitimate request, and sensitive sites in the US and Japan are already blurred.
So now, not only Google but also the terrorists would know which key Indian establishments are located where:
Key establishment is a blurred spot!
Who knows how complete is the list of key establishments provided to google?
Also, there are techniques to get information about the real image out of blurred images. This link http://dheera.net/projects/blur.php is only about numbers but I'm sure there are other ways to get more information out of blurred images.
Already done... check the area around LaGuardia Airport, which is northeast of Manhattan near Long Island Sound. You can clearly see that Target has painted a giant logo on top of the store.
I mean, why would someone really want high resolution pictures of sensitive facilities. I mean, damn. It's one thing to really want to read about Falun Gong on the internet, but to really have a need to know about sensitive facilities it quite something else.
Maybe I am not libertarian enough.
I'm surprised at the comments which say that the blurring is not needed. We are not talking about the United States and Chinese spy satellites overlooking Indian establishments. We are talking about terrorists. When they plan attacks on key structures, should we be providing them detailed layout of these buildings, so that they can make maximum impact and escape easily? Without such help, they will have do this manually increasing the chances of them getting caught before the attack. In a country where the parliament, US consulates and universities have been attacked recently, blurring the images makes perfect sense.
Just bomb all the blurry spots.
The idea behind the blurring is flawed because now you'll have curiosity seekers wondering what exactly is at the blurred/blanked out locations. Then they'll go around on the ground taking pictures of that location and posting them on the internet. (Area 51, anyone?) So much for the secrecy of these sites.
The internet being what it is will now provide more information simply because of the 'need of information' and 'information wants to be free' feedback mechanisms.
Leaving those places alone would have been smarter, a place mapped the same as the surrounding area doesn't attract extra attention. Sure you might get the arial layout, but that's still of limited use. Not to mention most google map pictures are static and a few years out of date, their strategic use is quite limited.
How about they have an option to blur unsightly buildings? For example I'd love to see a forest where Washington, DC is! And think of the ugly architecture of certain Paris Banlieux?
Sounds like Google is onto something!