Google Using Pre-Katrina Imagery on Google Maps

Thirdsin writes "CNN reports that images of lands devastated by Hurricane Katrina have been replaced on Google's map service with pre-Hurricane Katrina imagery. Now a subcommittee from The House Committee on Science and Technology has asked CEO Eric Schmidt for Google's motivation behind the imagery switch. '[Congressional subcommittee chair Brad] Miller asked Google to brief his staff by April 6 on who made the decision to replace the imagery with pre-Katrina images, and to disclose if Google was contacted by the city, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey or any other government entity about changing the imagery. "To use older, pre-Katrina imagery when more recent images are available without some explanation as to why appears to be fundamentally dishonest," Miller said.' It is worth pointing out that images from Google Earth have not been changed."

Comments

We'll never know

[timeOday]

Obviously google is going to say this is because of some little technical reason, and there's no real meaning to it. Is that true? Probably, but maybe not. We'll never know.

Re:We'll never know

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the pre- images are unflooded. I don't think most of the area is still flooded (though a lot is pretty grim looking), so the flooded pictures that were up for so long, while fascinating, are probably even more inaccurate than the pre- images. Really, Google should find *recent* photos, and use neither the sensationalist flooded ones nor the pristine pre-flood ones.

Re:We'll never know

[10e6Steve]

I think Google is doing the same thing Microsoft Live and Yahoo maps are doing. Live shows us a black and white map where the streets of New Orleans look like they aren't flooded. Same with Yahoo, and I suppose a lot of the aerial view mapping sites aren't real-time satellite images. So why is Congress picking on Google? Doesn't the government have spy satellites pointed at every American city that can provide them with this information?

Re:We'll never know

[timeOday]

I suppose a lot of the aerial view mapping sites aren't real-time satellite images. So why is Congress picking on Google?

Google used to use newer (flooded) images, then went back to older (unflooded) ones. It's not that they're outdated that's strange, it's that they went backwards.

Re:We'll never know

[Dun Malg]

Google used to use newer (flooded) images, then went back to older (unflooded) ones. It's not that they're outdated that's strange, it's that they went backwards. Isn't it fairly obvious? Images of land under 6 feet of water are largely useless for navigation. If the newest images they have are flood images, it stands to reason that at some point you'd want to get some images showing dry land, with streets, landmarks, etc. If all you have that shows that is pre-flood images, your only choice is to go back to the older images until the satellite images are updated.

Re:We'll never know

[Curtman]

They do this in areas that are completely unrelated to Katrina as well.. This road now exists, and doesn't in fact go through those buildings or those fields. That construction project in that area took almost 2 years to complete and Google shows it as it was before it began. I doubt it's a conspiracy, but probably due to being a cloudy day during the last pass of the satellite.

Re:We'll never know

[lbanting]

The maps shown for Calgary are seriously out of date too. I live near 68th St and 17Ave SE. and I can still see the drive-in theater there, it has been replaced by a Rona warehouse about three years ago. they closed the theater because of the Hub Oil explosion back in 1999 if I recall. At least the refinary is off the map image.

Re:We'll never know

[happyduckworks]

Danny Sullivan has an interesting blog post on this issue: http://searchengineland.com/070330-100220.php He cites the response from a Director at Google saying that it indeed was a technical issue: the desire to show higher resolution imagery.

Dependency on Google

[DoofusOfDeath]

My guess is that one reason the senator cares is that his staff rely on Google to get their job done. It's interesting to see that throughout the federal government, workers are becoming dependent on various Google information services despite the fact that the govt. has put a lot of effort into building its own mapping services .

I wonder what other parts of government are dependent on Google's functionality, and what would happen if Google was interrupted.

Re:Dependency on Google

[j-pimp]

My guess is that one reason the senator cares is that his staff rely on Google to get their job done. It's interesting to see that throughout the federal government, workers are becoming dependent on various Google information services despite the fact that the govt. has put a lot of effort into building its own mapping services.

I see this as a good thing. Lets have massive reductions in the government mapping department. Fire some unnecessary employees and make whatever raw photos and GIS data the government collects easily available to google maps and potential competitors.

Re:Dependency on Google

[Teun]

I don't guess but am pretty sure you missed the reason for concern in the original article.

Becoming dependent on a commercial entity for providing you with data important for the ability of your democraticaly chosen government to take decisions is extremely dangerous.

When you on occasion not like the actions of your elected officials you would take corrective action at the next election, something you can't do with a Google.

Re:Dependency on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what other parts of government are dependent on Google's functionality, and what would happen if Google was interrupted. I'm sure that would make some people say "Yahoo!".

Re:Dependency on Google

[Anomolous Cowturd]

There are competitors to google. Anyone who doesn't like them can use their competitors' products instead. Compare that to government, where the moron voters choose either right-wing authoritarian idiots, or far-right-wing authoritarian idiots, and if you don't like it you're out of options.

Re:Dependency on Google

[jaweekes]

I'm just glad that they are now using maps where you can actually see the roads that you need to drive on. What use is a map if all the roads are flooded? You would miss half the detail.

Re:Dependency on Google

[j-pimp]

When you on occasion not like the actions of your elected officials you would take corrective action at the next election, something you can't do with a Google.

Except it seems the government cannot provide a mapping service adequate for its needs. They should find a way to facilitate competition for google maps if they do not cooperate. They could provide grant money to someone that would make an open source version of google maps where you could download the data and source code and run your own map web site.

Re:Dependency on Google

[segfaultcoredump]

I happen to work for a county and support our GIS group (along with a dozen other county departments)

Lots of the folks in the GIS group use google maps and google earth for quick and dirty stuff. We even use a google maps mashup on our main site for anything that requires a quick and dirty mapping application (voting locations, locations of sex offendors, etc)

That said, it is not a replacement for the GIS department, but it does help keep the size of the department in check. There are a few gotchas with the use of google:

1) Google earth is not free.
      It is free for non-commercial use only. Everybody else has to pay.

2) The imagery is old
      We do flyovers every two years minimum. The stuff on google is often 5+ years old for some parts of the county (the copyright date gets updated, but the images do not)

3) The data is not nearly as accurate
      For quick and dirty work, google earth is ok. But we have had to work on areas where google only has 1m or worse. We have 6" resolution for the entire county. It is also been rectified and fixed and things like plot lines and street centerlines are dead on. I've played with image overlays before, and google can be 20+ ft off in one direction or another. That is simply not acceptable when you are trying to figure out where you are going to put a street.

4) Ever try and plot a 6' by 42" map using google earth at full resolution with plot line overlays and dozen of other custom features that the customer wants for a presentation? Didn't think so.

So, if all the gis department does is provide non-rectified 1 meter satellite photos from 10 years ago... yeah, time to ditch them and use google. For anything else, you are going to need a gis group.... It does not have to be large, but it better exist.

Re:Dependency on Google

[SageMusings]

Becoming dependent on a commercial entity for providing you with data important for the ability of your democratically chosen government to take decisions is extremely dangerous.

I agree.

I also feel Google is under ZERO obligation to provide accurate, up-to-the-minute photos. If the data is that important to someone, then purchase it. Don't take Google for a free ride. Finally, the people that are trying to turn this into a major event should "get a life".

Re:Dependency on Google

[j-pimp]

That said, it is not a replacement for the GIS department, but it does help keep the size of the department in check.

That translates to lower taxes and smaller government without a reduction of services. Thats a great thing.

Re:Dependency on Google

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It is silly, but I think it would be nice if you could pick a time period. I know that the photos are updated in a patchwork manner, but if there was a way to "peel back" the history, I think it would be very interesting.

Re:Dependency on Google

[Descalzo]

My guess is that the real reason the senator cares is because this allows him to use Katrina to bolster his political career in a new way. I have a hard time seeing how this is any of his business at all.

Re:Dependency on Google

[hey!]

That translates to lower taxes and smaller government without a reduction of services. Thats a great thing.

Not if they make decisions based on obsolete data. As in, "We'll route this highway over here because it's agricultural land we can take for cheap." That's obviously such a huge issue that nobody would rely on Google Earth. But there are smaller ones that might be made.

In any case, government GIS departments are often a net producer of data. Private companies like Teleatlas may take that data and improve on it, for example comparing it to recent satellite or aerial imagery to improve its precision.

The problem with government GIS is that there isn't meaningful competition in the market to supply them with tools to make them productive. There is only one vendor, ESRI, that really matters. While ESRI makes powerful tools, they have a product line that interlocks, so that if you want to use their Internet map server, you are going to be tilted towards using their spacial data engine and desktop GIS tools. Not to mention that you'll probably need to buy both consultancy services and training to make everything work.

I think exciting things are happening in the open source GIS arena, both in fundamental GIS frameworks like GeoTools, and in systems that implement non-proprietary standards like GeoServer and U Minn's MapServer.

Re:Dependency on Google

[j-pimp]

That translates to lower taxes and smaller government without a reduction of services. Thats a great thing.

Not if they make decisions based on obsolete data. As in, "We'll route this highway over here because it's agricultural land we can take for cheap." That's obviously such a huge issue that nobody would rely on Google Earth. But there are smaller ones that might be made.

Yes, but they can find a few locations for the highway with google earth, and then check them with more expensive software. If your a small county without a license for "real" mapping software, you ,ight be able to request maps of specific areas from the state, as opposed to driving a county owned Crown Victoria up to the state capital to sit in front of the computer with the mapping software yourself. Also, it seems that google earth has post Katrinia images still.

The problem with government GIS is that there isn't meaningful competition in the market to supply them with tools to make them productive. There is only one vendor, ESRI, that really matters. While ESRI makes powerful tools, they have a product line that interlocks, so that if you want to use their Internet map server, you are going to be tilted towards using their spacial data engine and desktop GIS tools. Not to mention that you'll probably need to buy both consultancy services and training to make everything work.

Well if google caused enough of a stir to get congresses attention, perhaps they can become a competitor of ESRI themselves.

Re:Dependency on Google

[MrNonchalant]

Have you considered providing the better imagery to Google? In at least some cases they've been relatively responsive to such requests, especially when they get better imagery out of the deal. You probably have and for some reason haven't been able to, but just in case I thought I'd mention it.

Re:Dependency on Google

[QMO]

Becoming dependent on a commercial entity for providing you with data important for the ability of your democraticaly chosen government to take decisions is extremely dangerous.

So, you're saying that we shouldn't let government employees use phone books?
And
We should return to a non-privatized USPS ("a commercial entity" which transports data that many government entities rely on extensively)?
And
We should have at least one country-spanning internet backbone that is entirely tax-funded?

I would just like to say that I STRONGLY SISAGREE with you on these points.

Re:Dependency on Google

[QMO]

I did preview. I really did. And I even found and fixed some typos. I just missed the most important one.

To restate, I STRONGLY DISAGREE.

Congress: STFU.

[faedle]

.. as opposed to all the wonderful help provided by the US Congress to the hurricane victims.

It's pretty pathetic that Wal-Mart did more to help the victims of Katrina than the US FEMA did, in the terms of cash and donated goods.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty pathetic that Wal-Mart did more to help the victims of Katrina than the US FEMA did, in the terms of cash and donated goods.

Are you crazy? Congress used something on the order of $60-$100 billion of your and my money on New Orleans. I don't think even Walmart pitched in that much. That's a lot of strippers and beer! All Walmart did was feed people and help them have supplies to live. FEMA gave away as many $2000 credit cards as you could stuff your pockets with!

Re:Congress: STFU.

[ad0gg]

I'm confused. You say Congress STFU and then mention fema which is under the executive branch.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[westlake]

It's pretty pathetic that Wal-Mart did more to help the victims of Katrina than the US FEMA did, in the terms of cash and donated goods.

"Wal-Mart has given $17 million in cash, the largest corporate cash contribution to date, in addition to $3 million in products.
{USA Today] reports there are advantages to donating products instead of cash. The Internal Revenue Service allows a tax deduction greater than the products' costs..." Corporate Katrina gifts could top $1B September 13, 2005

FEMA provided about $6 billion dollars in aid directly to Katrina victims Katrina fraud cases

Re:Congress: STFU.

[slughead]

I don't understand: I have chosen to live in a place (Arizona) with no major natural disaster issues aside from possibly wildfires and flooding.

Why should my tax dollars go to people who have chosen to live in disaster-prone areas?

Seriously: it's nice that we're trying to help out the "needy", but you're helping out people who are victims of their own folly, and you're doing it with my money. It's not charity if you're taking money against someone's will to pay for it. I'm living in this hot-ass desert called Phoenix year after year while these coastal homeowners are getting federal money to rebuild after the cyclical storms wipe out their houses.

Where's my government check for not being a burden on the rest of the country? Hey, just give me half what you gave those Katrina people and I'll STILL be saving you money. My bills are higher anyway so I can pay for my A/C.

I think it's wonderful Wal-Mart helped out the Katrina victims. It's their money, they can do with it as they please. It's probably a stupid idea to give to people just because they did something stupid, but their hearts are in the right place (probably focusing on their own PR).

Some people say that blaming Katrina victims is like blaming a rape victim for walking down that scary dark alley in the first place... But it's a little different. Imagine if there was a big sign in front of the alley that said "WARNING: Periodically, the rape squad raids this alley and rapes everything in it" and the person went ahead and built a freaking house there. That's what it's like. Rape squads; think about it.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[El Cubano]

It's pretty pathetic that Wal-Mart did more to help the victims of Katrina than the US FEMA did, in the terms of cash and donated goods.

Walmart: Private entity; red-tape to redirect funds: minimal or non-existent

FEMA: federal government agency; red-tape to redirect funds: huge

You want FEMA to be able to act quicker? Go write your congressman and tell him to introduce legislation to remove the red-tape that slows down the government. Of course, you need to be careful. Because we are so concerned that some idiot who is only entitled to $1000 might get $1100, that we have full-time staff whose job it is to pour over the applications and paperwork and look at every little nitanoid thing.

You also have to remember that you might be considered a hipocrite (if you are a liberal) since many of the things that Bush has done to "streamline" the government are criticized with the refrain "the less the government can accomplish, the safer the people are." So, which do you want?

Re:Congress: STFU.

[maxume]

Yes, but they weren't in the city working outside of their mandate to undo the damage that local and state efforts had done, so clearly FEMA are bastards.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[bmo]

"I have chosen to live in ... Arizona" ...

"Why should my tax dollars go to people who have chosen to live in disaster-prone areas?"

Why should my tax dollars go to people who have chosen to live in areas that DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH WATER TO SUPPORT THE POPULATION except through federally funded water projects?

http://cals.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/janfeb07/featu re1.html

STFU, really.

--
BMO

Re:Congress: STFU.

[jerryasher]

I live in Arizona too. Here, we have the country's largest nuclear power plant and on it's most unsafe nuclear power plants. Here too, we have no water. And we also have so much sun that only Australians get more skin cancer.

So there you have it, no water, too much sun, not a whole lot of agriculture, or oil (we have to pipe in our gas), and the country's worst and largest nuclear power plant.

It's a freakin paradise and incredibly safe from disasters as well.

Mod parent down as arrogant dumbass.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Kreigaffe]

Hmm, I live in an area that's free of disasters, and gets enough rain.

You both need to GTFO and STFU. Give me money for not deciding to live somewhere people shouldn't be living.

And with that money, I will invest in plywood sales in Florida.. yesss..

Re:Congress: STFU.

[beoba]

As a resident of Phoenix, your water supply is imported from California. Why should the "coastal homeowners" of California feel obligated to provide you with water? After all, its your fault that you live in a fucking desert, and you should be punished for it.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the exact same reason that your tax dollars should go for the public road in front of your neighbor's house, and not just the road in front of yours.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Scrameustache]

I don't understand [...] my money. It's not charity if you're taking money against someone's will to pay for it. I'm living in this hot-ass desert called Phoenix [...] Where's my government check for not being a burden on the rest of the country? Hey, just give me half what you gave those Katrina people and I'll STILL be saving you money. My bills are higher anyway so I can pay for my A/C. [...] Some people say that blaming Katrina victims is like blaming a rape victim [..] Rape squads; think about it. Who the hell modded that insightfull and why?

Re:Congress: STFU.

[lawpoop]

"Why should my tax dollars go to people who have chosen to live in disaster-prone areas?"

You're failing to look at the big picture. The reason is because New Orleans is one of the busiest ports in the world. All of the goods we send down the Mississippi river enter the ocean through the port of New Orleans. Of course, the port is more than just long docks and loading cranes. Part of the infrastructure of the port are the human workers who actually make the thing go. All of the people who live in New Orleans provide the human infrastructure to keep the port running. That's the reason they live there -- the port needs human laborers to keep the cargo coming in. Those human laborers need places to sleep at night, places to eat, places to buy groceries from, etc. You get the idea.

The problem with ports is that they have to be on the water. We can't build ports in the middle of Montana so that they will be safe from hurricanes. Ports, which hopefully I don't need to explain are a vital part of our infrastructure, will periodically be threatened by flooding and hurricanes. As a society, we have to band together to create massive projects such as ports so we can import our morning coffee from South America and send our DVDs to Europe. You won't personally be conscripted to work on the port itself, like in the pyramid-building days of ancient Egypt, but you will have to pitch in some money in the form of taxes. Or, we could just let our ports be destroyed, one by one, after each flood or hurricane. We don't really *need* bananas from Brazil, or rice from China. But I don't think you'll find much to eat in the middle of your desert.

As a society, we did fuck up the New Orleans situation. We had a horrifically inadequate levy system. Politicians at all levels failed to bring them up to par for decades. As a society, we didn't plan ahead to protect our infrastructure, and now we are paying for it.

I do agree that if people are taking risks, such as building million-dollar beachfront homes in California or Florida, we don't need to subsidize them through taxes. However, we do need a port on the mouth of the Mississippi, and we need to make sure that that port will be manned no matter what natural disasters threaten it.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Schue]

A few notes... New Orleans is one of the first and largest port cities in America. The French put it there due to its convenient location between the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Ponchitrain and the Mississippi river. Moving any of those large bodies of water is fairly difficult so the original economic reasoning still stands. New Orleans is also the largest inlet for the importation of natural gas which is widely used to generate electricity (ie. for people in places like Arizona) and that's another multi-billion dollar industry. Speaking of multi-billion dollar industries... one of the main reasons that Katrina was so destructive is because changes to the Mississippi delta for things like natural gas service channels and deep shoal shipping have caused massive areas of the Lousiana swamps to die out and arode. Who cares right? Well, when the swamp dies off it takes huge stands of trees with it and those present a huge physical break that slows down a storm heading inland. Think of a hurricane as a giant bowling ball and imagine the difference between rolling it down a bowling alley or across a thick lawn. Kill off the swamps and you have a nice smooth alley heading right up into New Orleans. So before you go blaming the victim you might want to think about what things like shipping channels and energy imports have done to a community like New Orleans. Since places like Arizona would probably never support a massive inland population without energy to run air-conditioners and well pumps you could have some degree of culpability in the situation. Oh, and don't call us if you find yourself in the middle of a 100-year level drought don't come crying to us... its your stupid fault for living in the desert... dumb ass.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[birge]

Water projects are productive, cleaning up from hurricane after hurricane is a dead weight. It was a cute little argument you made, but you might as well have said "why should my tax dollars go to build roads for people who are too stupid to live somewhere other than a salt flat." Providing infrastructure is vastly different from providing disaster relief for predictable disasters, though apparently too few people remain smart enough to grasp that these days.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funding water isnt the same. The goverment funds lots of projects to make some things practical, they fund roads so we can go places, they fund healthcare (how well can be argued) so that the needy can get shots...etc. And they fund disaster recovery for victimes of natural disaster. I think the question is at what point do we stop when we know that a disaster occuring in the same location is highly probable. Face it, New Orleans is a city that was built in the wrong location. There is obviously a risk to any coastal city, but many are justified because of the revenue from the shipping, fishing, or tourism. Look how quick Miami bounved back after a hurricane. The difference between Miami and New Orleans? Miami was damaged by a hurrican, New Orleans was damaged by a flood caused by building a city in a bowel below sea level!!!!!!! Why should we rebuild in the same shitty ass location.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Nehmo]

Wal-Mart did not honor FEMA checks if the checks were over $1,000. And I'm not at all clear that Wal-Mart did more than FEMA. FEMA gave out a lot of money. I'm sure a lot of it just went to government people rather than victims, but what makes you claim Wal-Mart made such a large contribution? A statement like that needs backing up.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[General Wesc]

Congratulations on completely missing your parent's point. It's really quite impressive.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[General Wesc]

There is obviously a risk to any coastal city, but many are justified because of the revenue from the shipping, fishing, or tourism.

Some would say being our single most important sea port counters a lot of risk.

New Orleans was damaged by a flood caused by building a city in a bowel below sea level!!!!!!!

No, a city built in an area that eventually sank below sea level.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The port by definition will be above the waterline. How did you go from "we need the port" to "we need to build and maintain levees to protect homes built 14 feet below sea level? If that port generates that much traffic, the commerce will pay for the building and maintenance of it. They can charge toll to the barges and build the port. Leave my taxes alone. Please.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Kaboom13]

I agree with both of you. It's almost as if this country was segmented in semi-autonomous regions, who could collect taxes and pay for improvements for the people who live in them, without involving the rest of the country. Then, a larger government that helps them get along with each other and only deals with issues that affect the entire country. If only we lived in such a system. Oh that's right, we used to, but then we got tired of having to pay attention to more then 1 election every four years, so we just gave the federal government the authority to take a big chunk out of our paychecks before we even get it, and make it disappear into a giant bureaucracy to be occasionally doled out to us in wasteful pork projects so the various parties can get the swing votes on important issues like gay people getting married (Hey, stopping two dudes from getting married is totally worth footing the bill for a billion dollar road project in Boston, or a military base guarding a corn field in the middle of nowhere). Sure, the tax burden makes it so you can't afford a place to live, but if you can find a sleaziest sleazebag to put in congress then the other states, he can get you some "free" federal housing projects, and if you go degrade yourself in front of some government employee on a power trip, he will hook you up with some "free" food stamps, etc.

So if you ask me, lets get the Feds out of the business of handouts to the states, and let each state pays it's own way. Then if New Orleans needs to rebuild from a hurricane, it can do so without its residents having to worry about building that new water project in Arizona, and vice versa. If living in a certain disaster prone or lacking in resources area is not economically viable, then let them move, the country is a big place, with some of the most fit for human habitation environments on earth(There's a reason people came from countries across the world to settle it)

I live in South Florida, I like it here a lot. We have the occasional hurricane, but we also have great weather, a beautiful natural environment, and a culturally diverse population. I am willing to spend more to live here to compensate for the costs of hurricanes. If a hurricane comes and destroys my house tomorrow, I don't expect someone in Arizona or New Orleans to lift a finger for me. I'll be out the next day, clearing away the debris, salvaging what I can, and making plans for the future. If people, of their own free will, donate their money to help us, I'd gratefully accept. But I don't want a dime from a pack of bullies in the government, handing out a small portion of the taken from us (under penalty of jail time) back and expecting me to jump through their hoops to get it.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[sp3d2orbit]

Most places in Arizona have plenty of water thanks to the Central Arizona Project, the Salt River Project, and our allotment of the Colorado river. The link you posted talks about water problems in Northern Arizona (Arizona is the 6th largest state by land area). If there is any threat to our water supply, it is not fault of Arizona's, but Californians who are all to ready to take AZ's allotment of the Colorado River.

But, it's not like California ever has natural disasters, does it?

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Zaphod2016]

bmo already had an excellent response, but I want to chime in as a person living 3 blocks from the Atlantic Ocean, now about 3 months from the start of hurricane season.

I agree with you. 100%.

I am happy to pay higher insurance premiums and taxes to live in a prime area. These costs were factored into my final budget, along with an emergency fund to be used in the event of an evacuation. I am not rich, not even upper-middle-class really, but I take responsibility for myself and my family, as this is the cost of freedom.

To share the costs of our hurricane damages throughout a Federal fund is unfair to the 99% of Americans who aren't right next to the beach, and it artificially disguises the true cost of my home.If I were forced to pay the full premium of potential hurricane damage, that might change my budget, might force me to pick another area. So long as true costs remain hidden, even those who want to be personally responsible, like me, cannot truly be so.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[dninc]

Why you make yourself out to be as ignorant as you are stupid we will never know, sadly there are plenty others that are confused or just not educated enough to the facts of why disaster funds are put aside for anything such as storms etc, I don't to totally put you down and put you out there but i see and hear this being said all through the web and in conversations throughout about Katrina this and that and why your tax dollars are being sent there..

Ok since people want to just let Louisiana Wash away why not just let Southern California fall into the Ocean, those people "CHOSE" to live in a unstable ground, there's Earth Quakes, Wild fires, Floods and could soon be a Possible Tsunmai, and yes Cali is in a Hurricane Prone area as well and it's residents live off the Coast and even right on the beaches, heck there are people living on hills, and it took Billions of Federal Dollars to Fund Cali when the big earthquake in the 80's and early 90's happened.

Then lets jump over to Florida, Miami at that.
1926 - Miami
The blow that broke the boom
The 1926 storm was described by the U.S. Weather Bureau in Miami as "probably the most destructive hurricane ever to strike the United States." It hit Fort Lauderdale, Dania, Hollywood, Hallandale and Miami. The death toll is estimated to be from 325 to perhaps as many as 800. No storm in previous history had done as much property damage.

1928 - Okeechobee
The night 2,000 died
When the hurricane roared ashore at Palm Beach September 16, 1928, many coastal residents were prepared. But inland, along Lake Okeechobee, few conceived the disaster that was brewing. The storm struck first in Puerto Rico, killing 1,000 people, then hit Florida with 125 mph winds. Forty miles west of the coast, rain filled Lake Okeechobee to the brim and the dikes crumbled. Water rushed onto the swampy farmland, and homes and people were swept away. Almost 2,000 people perished.

1935 - The Florida Keys
Most intense hurricane to ever strike US
The Labor Day storm was a category 5 hurricane that killed 408 people in the Florida Keys. People caught in the open were blasted by sand with such force that it stripped away their clothing.

1960 - Hurricane Donna
Donna batters Florida, entire U.S. East Coast
After swiping the Florida Keys and striking land near Fort Myers on Sept. 10, 'Deadly Donna' did not travel along the usual path that storms of her magnitude usually take.

1964 - Hurricane Cleo
The day the News didn't publish
Hurricane Cleo blasted Key Biscayne and then moved north along the state's coastline, following State Road 7 and passing over Miami, Opa-locka, West Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale. The hurricane caused massive flooding, structural damage and destruction of the citrus crop. It also prevented the Fort Lauderdale News from publishing -- for the only time in its history.

1965 - Hurricane Betsy
Bad Betsy changed direction
Hurricane Betsy was building strength; it looked like it was aiming for South Carolina, posing no threat to South Florida. But on Saturday, Sept. 4, the storm whirled to a stop, about 350 miles east of Jacksonville. When Betsy started moving again on Sunday, she had changed directions. The storm plowed through the Bahamas Monday night, then mauled South Florida a day later.

1992 - Hurricane Andrew
A 'modern-day apocalypse'
For 27 years, South Florida had been spared a severe hurricane. Then Andrew arrived, the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history. Andrew wrecked more property than Hugo, Agnes and Betsy combined, with damages estimated at $25 billion. Twenty-three died.

2004 - Hurricane Frances
The size of Texas
Hurricane Frances, a sluggish and super-sized storm, may leave as its legacy a singular image: The entire state of Florida, 435 miles from Tallahassee to Key West, enveloped in rain and wind.

2004 - Hurricane Jeanne
The last storm of the season
Hurricane Jeanne pushed across Florida, launching leftover storm debris, tearing apart w

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

a culturally diverse population

You mean Cubans.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot more people die because of coal power than nuclear power. Stop complaining about your relatively safe power plants.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we rebuild in the same shitty ass location.

I've often wondered the same thing. Why the hell are we rebuilding a city that is guaranteed to get flooded again in the next category 5 hurricane that hits it. The pumps and levees are only designed for a category 3 to begin with. I personally feel the LA should cut its losses and focus on NOT building there again.

I am not a hard-hearted person but I get tired of the outstretched hands still living in New Orleans and asking for more assistance. MUCH of the relief money has been proven to have been wasted as it is. The State and Local governments botched the whole disaster. The Federal government was lambasted despite responding with tremendous aid. And we want to go through all this drama again?

Abandon the damn city.

I gave money to the Tsunami victims but could not bring myself to give a dime to the Katrina affair. The "victims" in most cases (but not all) simply refused to leave with ample warning. Then took the opportunity to loot because we all know people can eat DVD players and other consumer electronics. Some of these people received more from government handouts than they ever had before the hurricane. Now the city is a haven for murderers. Please, please do not waste my tax dollars on that cesspool.

New Orleans will be under water again in the next 10 - 15 years. It is bound to occur.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[ScrewMaster]

FEMA was an organization that was comparatively small as such bureaucracies go (for just the reason you outlined) and has been around for a century or more. It was specifically designed to be able to play fast and loose with the rules so that it could get stuff done in an emergency. It was being subsumed into the Department of Homeland Security that caused most of these problems, as I understand it. That, and our idiot President appointing a fellow idiot to run the thing. Much of what happened in New Orleans can be laid squarely at Bush's feet, because he didn't leave FEMA alone.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[benzapp]

So if you ask me, lets get the Feds out of the business of handouts to the states, and let each state pays it's own way.

You can't do that. This is actually a major reason for the political conflict of the US. The coastal cities have tens of millions of non-white people who survive on government assistance, while the interior of the country produces everything of value that people consume and that the nation trades for other goods.

If we were to implement your system, the entire poltical structure would collapse, and we would have outright revolution. Millions would starve.

I hate to tell you this, but Florida is in a way part of this as well. Florida has some agriculture, and is a major financial hub of Latin America, but otherwise - retirees and welfare provides much of spending income.

Your attitude was appropriate 100 years ago, before politicians learned they could both bribe voters and import them by the millions.

Now, it's too late.

Sorry. This is the way of things. The question now isn't "Can you take care of yourself?" but "can you fight to preserve what you have?".

Ditch the extreme individualism - Ayn Rand could never raise an army. Unfortunately, you will have to.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[dninc]

Why you make yourself out to be as ignorant as you are stupid we will never know, sadly there are plenty others that are confused or just not educated enough to the facts of why disaster funds are put aside for anything such as storms etc, I don't to totally put you down and put you out there but i see and hear this being said all through the web and in conversations throughout about Katrina this and that and why your tax dollars are being sent there..

Ok since people want to just let Louisiana Wash away why not just let Southern California fall into the Ocean, those people "CHOSE" to live in a unstable ground, there's Earth Quakes, Wild fires, Floods and could soon be a Possible Tsunmai, and yes Cali is in a Hurricane Prone area as well and it's residents live off the Coast and even right on the beaches, heck there are people living on hills, and it took Billions of Federal Dollars to Fund Cali when the big earthquake in the 80's and early 90's happened.

Then lets jump over to Florida, Miami at that.
1926 - Miami
The blow that broke the boom
The 1926 storm was described by the U.S. Weather Bureau in Miami as "probably the most destructive hurricane ever to strike the United States." It hit Fort Lauderdale, Dania, Hollywood, Hallandale and Miami. The death toll is estimated to be from 325 to perhaps as many as 800. No storm in previous history had done as much property damage.

1928 - Okeechobee
The night 2,000 died
When the hurricane roared ashore at Palm Beach September 16, 1928, many coastal residents were prepared. But inland, along Lake Okeechobee, few conceived the disaster that was brewing. The storm struck first in Puerto Rico, killing 1,000 people, then hit Florida with 125 mph winds. Forty miles west of the coast, rain filled Lake Okeechobee to the brim and the dikes crumbled. Water rushed onto the swampy farmland, and homes and people were swept away. Almost 2,000 people perished.

1935 - The Florida Keys
Most intense hurricane to ever strike US
The Labor Day storm was a category 5 hurricane that killed 408 people in the Florida Keys. People caught in the open were blasted by sand with such force that it stripped away their clothing.

1960 - Hurricane Donna
Donna batters Florida, entire U.S. East Coast
After swiping the Florida Keys and striking land near Fort Myers on Sept. 10, 'Deadly Donna' did not travel along the usual path that storms of her magnitude usually take.

1964 - Hurricane Cleo
The day the News didn't publish
Hurricane Cleo blasted Key Biscayne and then moved north along the state's coastline, following State Road 7 and passing over Miami, Opa-locka, West Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale. The hurricane caused massive flooding, structural damage and destruction of the citrus crop. It also prevented the Fort Lauderdale News from publishing -- for the only time in its history.

1965 - Hurricane Betsy
Bad Betsy changed direction
Hurricane Betsy was building strength; it looked like it was aiming for South Carolina, posing no threat to South Florida. But on Saturday, Sept. 4, the storm whirled to a stop, about 350 miles east of Jacksonville. When Betsy started moving again on Sunday, she had changed directions. The storm plowed through the Bahamas Monday night, then mauled South Florida a day later.

1992 - Hurricane Andrew
A 'modern-day apocalypse'
For 27 years, South Florida had been spared a severe hurricane. Then Andrew arrived, the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history. Andrew wrecked more property than Hugo, Agnes and Betsy combined, with damages estimated at $25 billion. Twenty-three died.

2004 - Hurricane Frances
The size of Texas
Hurricane Frances, a sluggish and super-sized storm, may leave as its legacy a singular image: The entire state of Florida, 435 miles from Tallahassee to Key West, enveloped in rain and wind.

2004 - Hurricane Jeanne
The last storm of the season
Hurricane Jeanne pushed across Florida, launching leftover storm debris, tearing

Re:Congress: STFU.

[TapeCutter]

"I don't understand..."

Judging by your lack of empathy, you are quite possibly Autistic. It's quite simple really, "no man is an island", however your post lends weight to the argument that you are "no man".

"Where's my government check for not being a burden on the rest of the country?"

On the contrary, the illogical, whinny, callous expressions of greed and selfishness so eloquently portrayed in your post is definitely a burden, not only for your fellow contrymen but for humanity as a whole.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Kaboom13]

(I apologize this has strayed so far off topic)
I won't even comment on your racist "non-white people who survive on government assistance", it's a bullshit argument that can not be supported by any real evidence. As far as Florida relying on income from the federal government, I'd point you here [url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26 6.html[/url] in 2004 Florida received $1.02 in federal spending for every $1.00 collected from it in 2004, putting it at #30, New York, California, and New Jersey are all near the bottom, below $0.80. The highest that year was New Mexico, at $2.00, so I'd say your conclusion that the coastal cities are leeching off the rest of the nation are dead wrong. I am not proposing we end government assistance, although I personally do not ask for no expect any, I merely propose we follow the adage "Charity begins at home", as in instead of the behemoth that is the Federal government collecting most of the tax money, and doling it out as political favors, the money is collected from the people of the community it will serve. If New York City wants a new bridge, they raise the money from their citizens, and build it, if California wants to do beach renovations, they collect the money from their citizens and do it. Instead of my money disappearing into a black hole that is the IRS and the Federal Government, I want to see where and how it is being spent with my own eyes, because as the person(s) paying for it, who better to judge if it is money well spent?

I don't get why you think I believe in extreme individualism, I happen to think Ayn Rand was a poor writer and a worse armchair philosopher. I am willing to accept the help of others, and I believe in our community, and out country we should help each other. But there is a difference between asking for and receiving help, and taking what you want by force.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[slughead]

I don't understand [...] my money. It's not charity if you're taking money against someone's will to pay for it. I'm living in this hot-ass desert called Phoenix [...] Where's my government check for not being a burden on the rest of the country? Hey, just give me half what you gave those Katrina people and I'll STILL be saving you money. My bills are higher anyway so I can pay for my A/C. [...] Some people say that blaming Katrina victims is like blaming a rape victim [..] Rape squads; think about it.

Who the hell modded that insightfull and why?

I'm wondering the same thing and I'm the one who wrote it!

Not just because I didn't even take my own ideas seriously (as made dead obvious by the last paragraph), but because it was a quasi-conservative post on slashdot and we all know those are flamebait :)

In the brief moments at +5, however, the post inspired a half dozen interesting posts and intelligent responses (some modded as such) to said posts. Sure, there were a bunch of nonsensical reactionary flames, but it begs the question: Why is Flamebait -1 and not +1?

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Frumious Wombat]

You forgot the big meteor crater, and the (hopefully) inactive volcanoes. There's also the little issue of power (for AC) and water (for not drying up and blowing away), no matter who or what is causing the warming trend. You live in a place where people have to water cactus, which probably would qualify as a disaster area (Phoenix certainly is aesthetically), if it weren't the normal state of affairs. (As for the cause of the warming, my vote is personally on the Andorians)

Seriously enough, Forbes did a little disaster cost-estimate post-Katrina, and the least destructive (financially) by at least a factor of 5-10 was a severe ice-storm in the Northeast. West gets drought, fire, and geological events, midwest flooding and tornadoes, coast hurricanes, and NE ice and snow. So, if you're serious about not being a burden on the rest of us, please feel free to move back to NY, PA, or New England. (and stay off the flood plains when you do.)

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.htm l

Be careful when linking, if it comes out plain text and /. inserts a space for formatting reasons you end up with a harder time than necessary just to "click" a link. Use <URL:http://example.com/> to auto-link a URL (as per the comment instructions).

Re:Congress: STFU.

[shadanan]

Quite simply: the individuals who work at and maintain the port (either directly or indirectly) live in the homes built 14 feet below sea level.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Kreigaffe]

Sometimes in the quest for pointless checks from the guv'mint, it is neccessary to miss points and simply make a loud noise and demand things.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, there is no GOOD reason that any port should be geographically below
the immediately surrounding sea-level -- as New Orleans was, is, and will be in future.

If a port is needed near the mouth of the Mississippi, the first criterion is to find
some land (i.e. ABOVE the normal level of the river/sea/ocean/gulf).

The hurricane strike was a tragedy -- but it has been predicted for decades
(e.g. PBS NOVA did a show on this) BECAUSE New Orleans is entirely BELOW
the surrounding sea-level.

Those weren't ordinary "levees" that only work when there is a flood condition.
They were "dikes" (e.g. Netherlands) to keep the water out 24x7x365 because
the city was BELOW SEA LEVEL.

Congress is still a mess for encouraging folks to rebuild BELOW SEA LEVEL.
The city should have been moved onto legitimate dry land ABOVE SEA LEVEL
before or after the Hurricane strike.

Re:Congress: STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

Donated... or stolen goods?

I had to do it...

Seriously though, I am not a huge fan of Google, but it is NOT the business of the US Government to tell them what they can and cannot map on their map services with the exception of some locations that the government might like kept hidden.

Good grief!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Sofa King We Todd Id.

Congress has nothing better to do that question Google about these images? I'm sure there must be some nefarious plan by Google to:
1) Use old images for New Orleans
2) ???
3) Profit!

Re:Good grief!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha I have that song! Rather interesting to see a fellow /.er like anticon stuff...

Re:Good grief!

[Secret Agent X23]

Congress has nothing better to do that question Google about these images?

First, I'm sure they're doing other things also. Second, we would probably be a lot better off if it were indeed the only thing they were doing.

I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[catbutt]

is going on.

Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, but I'd be willing to bet it was simply decided based on quality/resolution of images, and some underling working on it didn't really think about the fact that it the imagery in question is significantly different from how it looks now.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[squiggleslash]

If I do a map of my home, in far-from-Katrina-hit Florida, the imagary is also around two years old (at least.) It's not newly replaced either, it's been pretty much the same maps since I discovered Google maps.

I'd be surprised if Google has replaced anything, if they have I suspect it was a case of newer imagery being prematurely released and then removed, not anything aimed at New Orleans.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Captain Splendid]

but I'd be willing to bet it was simply decided based on quality/resolution of images

I dunno. The after pictures seemed to have as high a resolution as the before pics IMO.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[lawpoop]

"but I'd be willing to bet it was simply decided based on quality/resolution of images, and some underling working on it didn't really think about the fact that it the imagery in question is significantly different from how it looks now."

I'd like to take you up on your bet.

If google regularly revises its images on google maps, sometimes rolling them back in time for reasons of quality or resolution, I'd believe it. I doubt that any American would mistakenly upload old images of New Orleans, no matter their seniority or expertise, given what a giant story Katrina was. If it was a simple underling's error, why hasn't it been rolled back yet?

One factor you are ignoring is that by using old images, they have made their maps less accurate. The idea of a map is that you know where you are and what the things around you look like. Imagine they had access to super hi-rez satellite images from the 1980s. Should they use them? They *do* have higher resolution ...

Of course not! Lots has changed and been built in the US since the 1980s. You would just be creating a very hi-rez, inaccurate map. Who needs that? Who cares if you have higher-rez images of the past? You don't want them on a current map.

The fact is that the fallout from Katrina, and the fact that very little has improved two years later, is a serious blight on America's image as a first-world-nation. You expect this kind of thing in Africa or South America. I don't have any evidence for my particular interpretation, but you certainly don't have any for yours.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[LifesABeach]

Unless it is stated on Google Earth that the images are Pre-Katrina photos, then what we see is a lie. Why does Google need to lie about knowledge that is public information?

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[catbutt]

So what is your theory?

Why would they have changed them? Do you think that the city of New Orleans decided it would be better for tourism if people saw the old images, and made a clandestine deal with Google, possibly offering them money, to change it back?

I'm just having a hard time coming up with any reasonable explanation, other than basically an error.

Google has a pretty strong history of fighting attempts at marginalizing the information they serve. I can't believe they would knowingly put inaccurate information in there because of pressure from anyone. And I can't believe anyone has a whole lot to gain by having it showing out of date data.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[dwillden]

I too find it hard to believe anything malicious. And why the hell is congress wasting their time and our money on this. Take a look at NASA's World Wind images. They also show Pre-Katrina NO.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[jabuzz]

The U.S.A. is the richest country on earth, yet the state of much of New Orleans is an absolute disgrace. Much of what happened in terms of immediate relief at the time was a total and utter shambles. The long term distribution of aid to those effected has also been little short of corrupt. It really is a shameful episode in the history of the U.S.A.

Thing is the current administration bears much of the responsibility, and I am sure they would like to have it covered up as much as possible. One way would be to pressure Google to remove the post Katrina imagery so Joe Public has no easy way to find out the extent of the damage, and the extent to which so little has been done to fix it.

Did they do it? I don't know but it is worth investigating because if they did it is a massive deal.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[lawpoop]

I don't have a theory. You don't have to immediately have a theory for every suspicious event. I'm satisfied at this point to say "I don't know what happened, I think we need more facts before we jump to conclusions."

But, I do have some problems with your theory. First, I don't see any reason to assume 'accident' or 'random chance' by default. Second, I saw this story posted on digg two days ago. If google was interested in maintaining an accurate map, shouldn't they have fixed it by now? Have google's offices been closed Friday and Saturday?

The fact that they haven't repaired the error argues *against* some lackey making an error. If there weren't enough safeguards in place to prevent them from making this error (i.e. double-checking your work, peer review, timestamp checks), what's keeping them fixing the mistake? Don't they have managers or overseers whose job it is to check out changes made to the map? Aren't there some cartographers or GIS guys running around there, saying, "Hey, who put up these old images?" An organization of google's size doesn't make a product as large as google maps without layers of bureaucracy and oversight. You simply wouldn't get a decent map of the US without more than 'an underling' working on the project.

If it's so easy to make a mistake this glaring, shouldn't google maps be wildly inaccurate in many places? If google maps are fairly accurate, that means there are many eyeballs ( i.e. corporate structure and bureaucracy ) checking the work, reviewing changes, implementing procedures and code to make sure that the maps are accurate. This change would have had to pass through those checks. I can see something like the badlands of Montana being out-of-date, but the damage from hurricane Katrina? None of the managing cartographers said "Hey, these images are pre-Katrina! If we post them, our map would be wrong."

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Scrameustache]

If google regularly revises its images on google maps They do, the images for my city used to have higher resolutions, but a bunch of clouds obscuring parts of it, now there's less resolution, but no clouds.

So if you see anything good on there, take a screenshot, because it might not be there next time you look.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, the images of Paris are at least 1.5 years old. About this time, the théatre de l'Empire blew up, and has been entirely scrapped now. From the day of the accident, you had a safety perimeter in front of it. But it's still there, with no safety perimeter, on the Google Earth view as of today. So I guess Google just use rather old images in several places, but nobody noticed (or cared) so far.

It's latitude 48d52'37.61"N, longitude 2d17'49.36"E BTW.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[guruevi]

Is it actually even worth re-investing in New Orleans? Those are disaster prone areas, kinda like the 3rd world in our own back yard, and unless you keep it up like the Dutch do for all of their country, history will repeat itself. The difference between the United States and the Netherlands is that if the levies break in the Netherlands, half their country will be wiped out. If you would have a barrier that protects all of our northerner states from certain disaster, it would be better protected than Area 51. Since it's only a 'poor' city and there seems to be a lot of whining going on about the situation, nobody will take the rebuild seriously. Besides that, the general thinking is (also amplified by the media) that they should move out of the area and get somewhere where such things don't happen frequently.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[lawpoop]

You have a valid point, but I think there will always be a need for a port on the mouth of the Mississippi river. It was the fifth largest port in the US, IIRC. That's the difference between New Orleans and beach-front resort property in Florida. We don't need the resort homes; we do need a port for the Mississippi river. That port will need workers, and those workers will need housing and grocery stores, etc. I think it's a question how far inland we re-build New Orleans. Unless we want a 3rd-world shanty-city in the US, servicing a major port. .

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Alioth]

I don't think it's some sort of conspiracy. I've noticed most of Google's imagery is several years out of date - ground features I know have been demolished 5 years ago are still visible in Google's imagery. Windows Live maps is even more out of date - I was looking at the airport I learned to fly at - it was closed and demolished in 2002. MSN's imagery is approximately 7 years old of that area (I can tell because I can recognise the planes on the ground from that time).

Anyone who relies on Google Maps or MSN for up to date imagery is on crack. We still have 5 to 7 years to wait before we see the post-Katrina imagery based on Google's track record so far.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[DerekLyons]

One factor you are ignoring is that by using old images, they have made their maps less accurate.

One factor that you ignoring, is the 'newer' imagery wasn't particulary accurate either. They showed a city deluged by water - which it hasn't been for over a year now.
 
Niether the old *or* the new is particularly correct with regards to current conditions.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[The-Ixian]

What about this theory:

1. Google creates minor controversy over some photos
2. Google gets free advertising
3. Profit

Age old method, we have seen it over and over. Why are people surprised every time it happens again?

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Dun Malg]

is going on.

Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, but I'd be willing to bet it was simply decided based on quality/resolution of images, and some underling working on it didn't really think about the fact that it the imagery in question is significantly different from how it looks now. I think it's more likely that they rolled the imagery back because the older pics look more like it does now than the newer imagery that shows nothing but water, water, everywhere. The flood images were utterly useless for navigation.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Dun Malg]

One factor you are ignoring is that by using old images, they have made their maps less accurate. The idea of a map is that you know where you are and what the things around you look like. New Orleans has been dry for over a year, and you think that an image showing it under water is more accurate? The old images which actually show all the ROADS are more useful for navigation.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, Moderators?

Someone just modded the parent as +3 insightful. Please, wake up and make this the -2 "senseless BS" it richly deserves.

Thank you.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Anonymous Coward]

yet the state of much of New Orleans

New Orleans? Try the state of the rest of the states that were hit by Katrina. There are still coastal cities in Mississippi that are just... gone. I know the Republicans like to do the song and dance about New Orleans's corrupt mayor messing everything up, but what about all the other cities out there that had perfectly fine leadership, what is the Republican excuse for their lack of aid to the rest of the coastline? Corruption or not, New Orleans at least got the squeaky wheel's share of the grease.

I think it's time for another flyover of the coast with nice up-close pictures to show just how far we've come in two years.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[RESPAWN]

Unless we want a 3rd-world shanty-city in the US, servicing a major port. LOL. I lived in New Orleans until the storm hit. Even before the storm, a popular bumper sticker around town was "New Orleans: Third world and proud of it."

Kind of takes on a new meaning now, eh?

Anyway, I don't really remember seeing any post-katrina imagery on Google. I didn't RTFA (this is Slashdot afterall!), but did they every show any post katrina imagery at all? Or has it always been pre-katrina imagery.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Rotten168]

When the populace keeps electing a mental midget like Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin, it's hard to feel sorry for them.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[Anonymous Coward]

I got to ask, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED?

What really needs to happen is the levies need to be fixed, and when they rebuild, they need to have better building codes. We have the technology to build houses and buildings that are hurricane proof, and its not even that expensive anymore, so why should we just forget about the area?

I live in South Florida, Palm Beach County, and I love the weather here. Its great, best in the country by far. I've lived here for 12 years now. No hurricane hit me AT ALL until 2 years ago, where then we got a little unlucky and started getting hit by hurricanes. Two seasons ago, we got hit by two, and last season we got hit by one... the first two caused no structural damage to my area, while a lot of landscaping and power lines and traffic lights were destroyed, and the last one caused some roof damage to my house, but nothing severe. Some people had more damage, but nothing that couldn't be reapired without rebuilting. This is due to the better building code that was implemented here after Andrew hit... houses must be built to withstand the full force of a category 3 hurricane where I live. The real biggest damage was power lines and traffic lights hanging from wires, which my city already had implemented a plan to replace all of those with hurricane proof arms. (Large amounts of the coastal areas had already been converted, and only 2 of the "hurricane proof" traffic lights were damaged, and only in one direction.) Since the hurricane, the county now has changed the code to require the hurricane proof traffic lights as well (unless the intersection is in a "temporary configuration" on the master plan).

To solve the problem with the power lines, they also have started an effort to move power lines underground so they can't be blown off the polls. Once these projects are completed, hurricanes will most likely be less damaging to the area then snowstorms are up north. If the power and traffic signals stay working throughout/after the hurricane, it really wouldn't be all too much of a big deal. I just wish the government was more efficient with their projects. After the last hurricane hit and over 90% of the old style traffic lights were blown away, they spend $200k per intersection between the temporary, quick replacements (single light per intersection in each intersection), the proper replacements to get it back to the way it was WERE BACK ON THE OLD WIRES, and then right after they finished that, they're going to replace them again with the hurricane proof ones, which is going to cost another $300k per intersection (they also have some other new requirements for intersections they're doing at the same time as well, like more advanced pedestrian signals that countdown how much time you have to cross the street, and audibly tell you when and what road you can cross). I think they should have left the temporary ones up longer and put in the hurricane proof ones as fast as they could to replace them, which would have saved about $150k per intersection in the county, which is a LOT of money.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[rtb61]

I suppose that is a rather cute way of saying it is ok to censor reality if it looks better. Perhaps this points to the whole principle of that kind of censorship. See how good your government is, just try and find anything bad about it on google.

Sometimes the truth is ugly but if you don't put it out in the open then don't expect those sores hidden by lies to be treated.

Just like marketing as news, the indifference that corporations show to the truth is disturbing for the majority of people and it certainly will not make for a better society, but then hey, what does it matter, it is only the truth, and every body knows there are far far more profits in lies.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[lawpoop]

Several times I got an email that had links to the google maps sections of New Orleans underwater. Even from bird's eye view, it was clearly an unliveable disaster area. I think this was an email meme going around.

Re:I find it hard to believe anything malicious

[RESPAWN]

OK. I didn't bother with Google shortly after the storm when I would have seen flood drenched waters. I seem to remember finding a site with arial photos of much higher resolution that I used. (Good enough to pick out the car I had to leave behind and see that it was, at least, still there.) I haven't been back to New Orleans much since the storm and I guess I rarely used the maps since I usually know where I'm going in NOLA. :)

Who cares?

[Slithe]

Why exactly is this the government being so heavy-handed with Google? Do critical government/health/military services depend on Google Maps? I can't think of any decent conspiracy theory, so I am not sure about this. There are certainly better things Uncle Sam can do with his time than worry about one company's map-charting policies.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because millions of people look to google for information, thier opinions on the subject will be limited to what they see. If they dont see the real katrina damage, it didnt happen.

Re:Who cares?

[KwKSilver]

Tin foil hat: Who is number 3 in internet search? What corporation has at least twice donated $1000-that we know of- to Brad Miller's election/re-election campaigns. The CEO of what major S/W companny has [supposedly] threatened to "fucking kill Google"? Well, this won't kill Google, but every little bit of slime helps. Nah, that's a little too wild. ;-)

Seriously, as for why Google did it, being a New Awlins expatriate (since 1980), I'd guess that someone in state and/or local government "finagled" enough to get Google to change it. Finagling could involve almost anything. This just has the aura/aroma of good old-fashioned has Louisiana politickin' to it. La. pollies have been involved in "dubious"real estate deals and developments as long as I can remember (back to the 1950s). In the early 1980s people in certain areas kept coming home to find smoking craters where their houses had been. Some subdivisions got built by putting a little fill dirt on what is locally known as "coffee grounds." Coffee gronds are beds of semi-decomposed vegetation of marshy/swampy enviornments, and they can be several feet thick like Maurepas Muck. The houses settled ... gas pipes broke ... boom! I follow the local news from there on a daily basis which can be found at WWL (870 - AM, 50,000 watts). Nothing much has changed since 1980.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL
If this were about Microsoft, you'd be foaming at the mounth, spouting conspiracy theories. But since it's Google, you're foaming at the mouth trying to defend Google's diseminating disinformation (i.e. intentionally showing outdated maps). Get it through your head - Google cares about one thing - themselves. And they'll lie, cheat, and steal to meet their goals. You can believe that there's some money that changed hands that caused this foulup. And if Google's willing to use outdated maps of N.O. for an extra buck or two, who knows how may other locales also have outdated maps?

Re:Who cares?

[Slithe]

KwKSilver's answer seems more logical (based on what I know about Louisiana). If this were Microsoft, I would have said the same damn thing! I know Google only cares about itself; however, since I did not see any benefit for Google to use outdated maps, I thought something else must be going on.

What-the?

[Etherwalk]

Are you kidding? Our Congress is investigating why google has made a change in its maps? And they're fishing for someone to start a political brawl with?

Don't we have... I don't know, something related to government services that they should be doing? Or, if it's going to be related to business, related to business that has a significant impact on consumers? Or poverty? Or taxes? Or services? Or the debt? We (as a nation) have a nine trillion dollar credit card debt, and we're worried about whether google's mapping decision was something we can get into a political scuffle about?

Re:What-the?

[catbutt]

I tend to agree with you that this is a waste of time....but the government actually can do more than one thing at once.

And I'm not sure I understand what you are implying they should be doing about credit card debt.

Re:What-the?

[Amiga Trombone]

I tend to agree with you that this is a waste of time....but the government actually can do more than one thing at once.

That is no doubt true, but the question still remains - what makes this an issue requiring the involvement of government? I fail to see how it's any of the government's business what kind of images Google posts.

Re:What-the?

[Derek Pomery]

I'd normally agree as a libertarian, but if, for example, the images were removed due to government pressure, then yes, it is the government's business.

Re:What-the?

[Etherwalk]

Oh, sorry: The National Debt. I meant the national credit card, which it effectively is.

(Although they should, certainly, be doing more about credit card debt than they are. Governments do have a responsibility to regulate capitalism, and many credit card issuers need to be seriously looked at. Usurious it the term, I believe.)

Re:What-the?

[iminplaya]

Hey, if the issue of flag burning and gay bashing and other distractions can win an election, we can't blame these guys for trying to find another electoral "g" spot. They're doing their best to take our minds off the real problems so we don't get upset. And the debt...well, we all know what purpose the debt serves. Like water, money has to flow, or it gets all stinky and full of algae.

Re:What-the?

[MillionthMonkey]

You don't understand PR.

It's very much in the current government's interest to make sure that the American streets in Google Maps are paved with gold. Especially in New Orleans, since focus groups seem to indicate that the public is unhappy with the appearance the city has had since the hurricane.

You want something with a bit of fluorish, like George W Bush landing on a jet carrier wearing a flight suit, or a trip to Mars or something. Maybe if enough people look at Google Earth, we can save money on all this gold and just tell Google to show different images of New Orleans, like the ones before the hurricane that actually look pretty good. You have to learn to think like a PR person.

Re:What-the?

[Cally]

Are you kidding? Our Congress is investigating why google has made a change in its maps? And they're fishing for someone to start a political brawl with?

Don't we have... I don't know, something related to government services that they should be doing? Or, if it's going to be related to business, related to business that has a significant impact on consumers? Or poverty? Or taxes? Or services? Or the debt? We (as a nation) have a nine trillion dollar credit card debt, and we're worried about whether google's mapping decision was something we can get into a political scuffle about?

You seem to have a naively simplistic idea of how government, the state, congress, and the political system function - and what their function is. Surely this is something most of us figure out fairly early on... around the time you first start notice politicians are making statements that affect your life, but that (a) what they say has little to do with what they do, (b) what they do has little to do with the reality of people's everyday lives, and (c) every elected politician in Washington has an income far, far above the average... you realise that what politicians say doesn't map directly to reality. You try on different models for a while - they're lying because they're right wing! No, wait, they're lying because they're leftwing! No, wait,... they're lying because they're evil fucks! Well, no, they can't all be pure evil & corrupt... it's almost as if it's not as easy as saying "here's the problem and here's the answer", getting yourself elected, then trying to get the answer implemented?

Bread and circuses, dear heart. Bread and circuses.

Re:What-the?

[hax0r_this]

"the government actually can do more than one thing at once."

I'll believe that after I see it doing even one thing successfully.

Re:What-the?

[zippthorne]

They're pretty good at taking your money and borrowing against your credit.

Re:What-the?

[SageMusings]

Don't we have... I don't know, something related to government services that they should be doing?

No, they don't. Congress exists to:

1) Spread FUD about the other party (pick one).
2) Hold hearings to get camera time.
3) Receive lobbyist money.
4) Sell legislation for campaign funds.
5) Campaign (as opposed to showing up for votes or listening to debate)
6) Spin spin spin spin spin
7) Revel in the fact the American taxpayer is damned stupid and easily led.
8) Vote for their own pay raise.
9) Act in their own self interest.

I am in the wrong business. I need to get out of software and into government. Please, vote for me. I will screw all of you but at least I'll be up front about it.

Most people bitching about NOLA are laughable

[5, Troll]

People aren't coming back to the Lower 9th, or any areas severly hit (Lakeview, Central City), because of a) the Road Home and insurance (receiving insurance money...) burearcratic mess, b) they can't afford to get their house up to new code, even though that coding isn't being enforced, due to lack of Road Home funding, c) because Nagin has a lot more to gain by sitting around playing the "I'm doing everything I can but nobody else wants to play ball" game than attempting to be effective and failing, and d) because they have lives elsewehere now. A-C are significant deterrents to coming back to a place when they have set up shop elsewhere. (Texas, that is not your cue to whine, Katrina 'fugees are there, get over it). This isn't even getting into the public housing debacle, which is really the issue of why people aren't coming back to New Orleans. You think all the people that wound up in the Astrodome or any of the various and sundry places they did OWNED their own houses, or had mortgates? HANO and HUD have effectively, and to my mind with blatant racism, shut out people from returning to their homes (or even getting their belongings) from structurally sound, livable high-density housing units. Google "St. Bernard Projects" to see what I mean. Their current posture is to build mixed-income neighborhoods- and I don't know how to feel about that. I really don't know if that'll be a positive or a negative. Please, spare us from the ignoramuses telling stories about how their friends bought power tools and fixed up their homes. Their homes were obviously not in decimated areas. They would have needed to haul a bulldozer down with them. And I think I'm going to take the word of a businessman who did a study determining feasability of opening a CONSTUCTION company in New Orleans as to the state of the CONSTRUCTION industry there.

Re:Most people bitching about NOLA are laughable

[Cally]

Strange but true. The ninth ward (and other badly hit areas) flooded to a depth of 9, 12, 16 feet in places and higher.

An anecdote -- which is not data. (And I just googled and couldn't find a cite for this, though ISTR it was in the LA Times that I read this.) Post-Katrina regulations for rebuilding in those areas mandate a three foot elevated foundation pile, ie the ground floor must be at least three feet above ground level.

This regulation is being cited - apparently credibly - as one factor, amongst many, that is inhibiting rebuilding and resettlement of the worst hit areas.

I'm not a civil engineer, but I get to read the "New Civil Engineer" and it's often fascinating stuff. Coastal management in the UK is now about "managed withdrawal" -- reflooding low-lying and reclaimed marsh areas, and allowing eroding coastlines to continue eroding rather than trying to protect them with seawalls, dikes and other traditional flood defences. This is a big, big, big deal: for starters, property owners who have just found that their area is now being effectively abandoned to the sea will not be getting any insurance or compensation.

I'm glad my house is on top of a hill, 200' above (but only half a mile from) the nearest river. On my daily commute I pass extensive modern housing estates built on what are obviously flood plains (this is in the Severn Valley in the west of the UK.) We're all doomed...

Huh?

[Kid Zero]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the lower Ninth doesn't look like it's been flooded in my version of Google Earth. Did I miss something?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you missed the point that they're talking about Google Maps, not Google Earth.

Re:Huh?

[Zwaxy]

Try to keep up. It was claimed the Maps shows pre-flood pictures and Earth shows post-flood. The GP is saying that Earth is also pre-flood.

just use Google Earth

[nanosquid]

Who knows why they changed it? Who cares? I suspect Google management has better things to do than to sit around discussing whether to put up pre- or post-Katrina images.

Just use Google Earth if you're going to do anything GIS-related.

Re:just use Google Earth

[catbutt]

I suspect Google management has better things to do than to sit around discussing whether to put up pre- or post-Katrina images. That seems like a reasonable thing for a manager within their maps division to discuss, to me anyway.

Re:just use Google Earth

[SeaFox]

I suspect Google management has better things to do than to sit around discussing whether to put up pre- or post-Katrina images.

I would say it appears they don't since they did take down the post-Katrina images to put up pre-Katrina images to start with, causing all of this.

Re:just use Google Earth

[nanosquid]

I would say it appears they don't since they did take down the post-Katrina images to put up pre-Katrina images to start with, causing all of this.

Google's entire business is built on automated data handling, not manual processing. I doubt anybody at Google ever even looked at those images. I mean, there are more cities in the US than there are employees at Google.

Most likely, they actually use some automated process to pick the "best" images for each map area, and that process concluded that the pre-Katrina images were of better quality than the post-Katrina images.

Re:just use Google Earth

[supasam]

New Orleans was photographed by sat. over and over and over again, with such detail that you could see individual waves in the flood. Why would they think that these pre-k pics were simply better?

Re:just use Google Earth

[nanosquid]

New Orleans was photographed by sat. over and over and over again, with such detail that you could see individual waves in the flood. Why would they think that these pre-k pics were simply better?

Take this image:

http://mediaspin.com/blog/wp-images/superdome_befo re-after.jpg

At the same compression level, when saved as JPEG, the left half takes about 10kbytes more than the right half. This is an indication that it contains "more information". As a result, an automated process that picks the best available images would pick the "before" picture, not the "after" picture.

Re:just use Google Earth

[supasam]

So you're saying that the pic with the bigger size, regardless of content, is the one to be picked at all times, right? Even though there have been pics of katrina damage on google before, put there by the auto-proc, it should now update to older pics because the newer ones have magically become smaller and thus contain less info.


In other words, why would the katrina pics have gone up, then gone down, if the info hadn't changed? Why would it have ever put them up? Furthermore, why is there and automated process out there that exists to say which pic is better based on some random criterion like file size?

Re:just use Google Earth

[nanosquid]

So you're saying that the pic with the bigger size, regardless of content, is the one to be picked at all times, right?

No. I'm saying that there are automated procedures that people use for determining what a "better" image is and I gave you one example of it. I suspect Google uses something more complicated than that. Nevertheless, almost all of them would evaluate the pre-Katrina images to be better than the post-Katrina images.

In other words, why would the katrina pics have gone up, then gone down, if the info hadn't changed? Why would it have ever put them up?

There are many possibilities. The most likely are:

* They may just have written the software to do automatic image selection; it may simply not have existed before.

* The software may have existed, but it may not have gotten around to processing those images yet.

Either way, it makes sense that the default was to show the newest version of any map area first, until the software got around to determining that an older image had higher quality.

Furthermore, why is there and automated process out there that exists to say which pic is better based on some random criterion like file size?

Because satellite and aerial imagery frequently contains bad images, due to bad weather, smoke, smog, fog, transmission errors, etc., and it makes sense to get rid of those images. Given the amount of digital imagery Google is putting on the web, obviously, they can't look through all of them by hand.

Here's another example, a 150ft giant bug that's now been removed from Google:

http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/09/18/giant-alie n-bug/

That shows you that Google does look for bad images, they do remove bad images, and it's almost certainly a partially automated process (although they also have shown that, occasionally, they will intervene manually, and I'm sure they will restore the post-Katrina images).

Re:just use Google Earth

[supasam]

There are many possibilities. The most likely are:

* They may just have written the software to do automatic image selection; it may simply not have existed before.

* The software may have existed, but it may not have gotten around to processing those images yet.

In other words you, have no idea. Some human may, just as likely, had a hand in the process, right? You think that google changed out that old bug pic before everybody and their grandmother knew about it? You think _I_ haven't seen it before? You think that even though I look at the Superdome from my front porch everyday, that I didn't know that googles images of my area have been wrong for A LONG TIME, longer than it takes the google interns to notice some dumb auto-proc's mistakes? Think about it.

Re:just use Google Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words you, have no idea.

I have a lot more of an idea than you, given that I actually know what I'm doing when it comes to images.

Some human may, just as likely, had a hand in the process, right?

No, not "just as likely". In fact, that's exceedingly unlikely.

You think that even though I look at the Superdome from my front porch everyday, that I didn't know that googles images of my area have been wrong for A LONG TIME, longer than it takes the google interns to notice some dumb auto-proc's mistakes? Think about it.

So what? Google images are a few years old for many locations. The only difference in New Orleans is that people like you are paranoid and apparently think that you're the navel of the world. I mean, what a vicious thing to do of Google to show some nice pictures of New Orleans as it was. They must really hate you. Get real!

Re:just use Google Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, Google explained it here:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/about-new-o rleans-imagery-in-google.html

Basically, they got higher resolution imagery and put them on their map server, consistently for everything. Now that they are getting newer high resolution imagery, they're showing that.

So, take off your tin-foil-hat.

4-dimensional imagery

[davidwr]

Someday Google will combine satellite, airplane and ground-level imagery to give limited 3-D flythrough maps.

Add add animation for changes over time and presto you've got a 4-D map!

Maybe this is the non-working mock-up prototype???

My response

[Quzak]

I would tell them to sod off. No law has been broken. Granted I would not make a swap like that, nor do I see the point in doing so. But there are more important things to worry about in this broken world.

Re:My response

[dbIII]

They have been hassled on irrelevent issues for political reasons occassionally. My favourite is when the head of ANSTO (Australia's small nuclear facility) demanded they blank out the facility due to the theat of "terror" and remarked on how irresponsible they were. It turns out a better resolution and more up to date aerial photo was on the main page of the ANSTO web site which showed it was a silly political point scoring exercise to show "we care about terror".

Re:My response

[Quzak]

Im more afraid of the people who cry "terrorist" then I am of the actual terrorists.

Do no Evil?

[Thirdsin]

Had Google posted a small disclaimer or notification with their maps I'm sure little attention would have been paid.

It's just very puzzling why they would make this change. There is unlikely to be any michievous plan behind the switch, maybe they were a little nostalgic...who knows? But Google's promise to "Do no Evil" springs to my mind and makes we weary of a change to "Don't get caught"

Re:Do no Evil?

[Edward Kmett]

I guess I just don't see the evil here.

For all we know it was just because imagery taken earlier made a nicer mosaic next to the other satellite imagery they had and scored higher on some resolution vs. lack of clouds vs. temporal accuracy metric and were automatically subbed in.

Re:Do no Evil?

[catbutt]

Doesn't evil sort of imply they had something to gain by it? What possibly could google have to gain by putting up inaccurate information? For that matter, what could anyone have to gain?

It seems obvious to me that this was some kind of oversight. Maybe they decided the pre-Katrina images were actually closer to how it looks now.

Re:Do no Evil?

[Thirdsin]

I do not mean to say that what Google has done is directly evil or they stood to gain from it. Merely the decision to show imaging (pre katrina) update the imaging (post Katrina) then revert to out of date imaging is questionable.

- If Google was concerned about better quality images, clouds, etc why not wait for more up to date imaging?
Instead they chose to erase the past in a geologically significant area.

Anyone viewing the maps would assume that imaging would be up to date (Or at least using the newest possible data). Without a notice disclaiming the imaging had been changed, a user would easily be mislead.

Google gets a black eye in my book on this one. This just doesn't make any sense without citing an explanation of the changes.

Googleearth and googlemaps the same for me

[Thagg]

I'm running the Linux version of googleearth, 4.0.2091 (beta) and the image from New Orleans are clearly pre-Katrina, and are in fact the same images used by maps.google.com (the cars are all in the same places on the roads, for instance.)

Thad

Re:Googleearth and googlemaps the same for me

[westlake]

the image from New Orleans are clearly pre-Katrina, and are in fact the same images used by maps.google.com (the cars are all in the same places on the roads, for instance.)

Then it becomes fair to ask the question: Of what use is a mapping service if it significantly distorts the reality on the ground?

Re:Googleearth and googlemaps the same for me

[dcd]

Google has a special page http://earth.google.com/katrina.html for the katrina data, but now some of the links on that page report "Sorry! The Katrina Hurricane Overlay service has been suspended. To stop showing this message, please disable the Network Link you downloaded. For more information on how you can help the victims of the recent hurricanes, please see: http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina _facts.html" in google earth.

uh....

[fragbait]

....who cares? ....this is news because? I grew up in Gulfport, MS. I'd rather see it the old way then with all the 15+ story condos they are building now.

-fragbait

Re:uh....

[dave420]

I'm not trying to be rude, but it's Google Earth, not Google Fragbait's Nostalgic Memories of his Childhood... it's marketed as the most accurate representation of Earth as Google can muster, so having them roll-back controversial, and indeed important, geographical changes without a word of explanation is clearly not ideal...

Sheesh, Google Maps is worse where I live

[Anonymous Coward]

The area looks like a green blob, and it's missing roads that have been constructed in the last couple of years. If Congress wants to stick their nose into it, why don't they tell the military to do a one-meter scan of the entire U.S., and just give the pictures to Google? Giving a company an unfunded mandate for your own political benefit doesn't sit very well with me.

Google Earth has been changed as well.

[Kid Zero]

My Version of Google Earth (4.0.2722 Build Date Jan 5 2007)has everything along the New Orleans/Mississippi Gulf Coast damage region pre-Katrina.

It's fracking useless, guys. Nice going.

Re:Google Earth has been changed as well.

[Sunburnt]

Really? I'm running an older version of Google Earth (4.0.2413), and I still have the post-Katrina images over Biloxi, although New Orleans has the pre-Katrina imagery. I didn't think the version affected the images you download: the Burlington, VT images on mine have changed once since I installed this build, without any action on my part. It looks like the Biloxi image is actually newer, as most homes are still covered with blue tarp and the casino that washed ashore has been removed.

Re:Google Earth has been changed as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mississippi Gulf Coast damage Careful with that. You might confuse Joe "Katrina == New Orleans" Sixpack.

Re:Google Earth has been changed as well.

[Kid Zero]

What's whacky is that we both seem to be right. There's some spots along the coast where you can tell the pictures overlap: going west from Biloxi reveals Gulfport in bad shape, Long beach also in bad shape, but then Pass Christian and Waveland are in the old pictures.

Weird.

Re:Google Earth has been changed as well.

[Sunburnt]

I hadn't noticed the use of old imagery on Pass Christian; thanks for the point-out. Hopefully all this imagery is replaced by 2007 pictures at some point in the near future - the Katrina and FEMA stuff is already cached.

Re:Huh? - Example Image

[j-stroy]

I think the accurate Google Earth Service will be the one you pay subscription for. Can anyone Confirm?
I spent some time looking thru online map services, including this comparative one Flash Earth All of them look pre-Katrina to my untrained eye.

I did find documentation on a lighthouse (mentioned in news articles) which had collapsed, but was visible in Google maps.
Google Map of West End Lighthouse
Image of Lighthouse Documenting its Collapse
Lighthouse Society Rebuilding Efforts

No big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Chicago, Soldier Field is still under repair. This is a 2003 era picture from around the time google maps was launched.
http://shrinkster.com/niz

Google Maps is imagery from several suppliers. No big deal. Most places don't change too much in even 10 years. It's a free service, so don't complain.
And now some busybody congressman is upset.

Visibility of streets?

[instagib]

Perhaps they were aiming to provide better visibility of streets and buidlings, so it would be easier to find your way around.

BTW, what about date tagging for each given area (whatever size would be best, I can't guess) you see in GoogleEarth? After all, the image data gets updated continuosly, but also irregularily. It would be nice to even have a history for comparison for each area.

Re:Visibility of streets?

[edisk1353]

It so happens that there is date tagging in Google Earth: all you have to do is enable the DigitalGlobe Coverage layer, the last item in the Layers section of the sidebar. DigitalGlobe, I'll note, is the private company that supplies the pictures. This has worked in Canada and France, which are the two countries I work on; I'd think it would in the States as well.

It's a map.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is just showing FEMA and everyone else where everything goes. Judging by the results thus far, they have no idea.

Re:It's a map.

[dino213b]

You're on the money there. What's really amusing is that FEMA isn't really doing its job (or wasn't, historically speaking). A little map magic wouldn't affect their performance by all that much. Quoting a FEMA research:

By 1991, three billion dollars was spent on preparation for a nuclear war while only 243 million dollars was allocated to planning for an actual "natural disaster".

Acts of God

There is a really good book out there written by Ted Steinberg - if you haven't read it, you would enjoy it.

How could they know?

[Migraineman]

We've got to be able to get some imagery on that area, old or new. Well how could they be changing them if they don't know we're coming? ... Break off the attack, the images have been changed!

I only get cached images. Are you sure?

Pull up! All Congressional subcommittee members pull up!

Re:How could they know?

[GraZZ]

You forgot the most obvious line:

IT'S A TRAP!

Re:How could they know?

[Migraineman]

But Admiral Ackbar wasn't in that scene. [waves hand] I forgot nothing ... move along.

The simple explanation

[geek]

Google is viewed by most politicians (mind you most politicians couldn't tell you what html is) as being the defacto standard of the internet in terms of searching, maps etc. So when something is falsified, accidentally or on purpose, they view it as their duty as protectors of the American public to step in. It's really all BS. Truth is they don't understand it so they fear it and then begin legislating it. I can't explain it any simpler. I've worked with a lot of these types in the past and if there is anything they have in common it's the fear of technology.

WTF?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

They changed the images to pre-Katrina?!?
Dammit, I want my money back!!

Oh, wait...

In other news

[SharpFang]

Get directions from New York, ny to Paris, France using Google Maps -> Directions.

Interesting...

Re:In other news

[MyHair]

Get directions from New York, ny to Paris, France using Google Maps -> Directions.

Interesting...

Linky for the lazy.

Re:In other news

[WK2]

Text for the even lazier:

23. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi.

Re:In other news

[Richard Frost]

Oh, now this is inexcusable! Look at all the toll roads they have you taking!

Re:In other news

[hszp]

"""
- Er, that's to the beach at Calais?
- Well, no, no, provided I get a good lift off and maybe a gust of breeze over the French coast, I shall be jumping into the centre of Calais itself.
[ Brief shot of group of Frenchmen with banner. 'Fin de Cross-Channel jump'. ]
"""

(please excuse my pytonic syntax)

Re:In other news

[Ageing Metalhead]

Ask it to go from NY to London. I don't want to go via France, I'd rather swim to Lands End and walk the rest, or swim to Bristol and catch God's Wonderful Railway A.M

Google is also responsible for...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

Guess they've finally gone evil.

Google can do what they want, *but*...

[ClayJar]

Google can do whatever they want, but you have to admit, it seems odd to revert to an older set of imagery. As there was nothing obviously wrong with the existing post-Katrina imagery as far as end users could tell, there isn't any obvious explanation.

While Google can do whatever they want, *if* some government agency or official asked them to revert to older maps (not that anyone would *ever* try to whitewash their pathetic failures or anything), that would be something to investigate. (We have a long history of corruption in Louisiana, especially New Orleans, and FEMA... well, there are plenty of reasons people in Louisiana hate FEMA.)

Anyway, Google did nothing wrong by reverting to older imagery, but if they did so on the request of some pathetic loser of a politician (or agency), we would *really* like to know so we can show them in no uncertain terms that we find that unacceptable for any public official.

Re:Google can do what they want, *but*...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the news of Katrina broke, I immediately assumed nobody was going to spend billions rebuilding coastal property for poor people. Those in charge of rebuilding NO are holding out for as long as possible to wear down the property owners and transfer as much of the property away from the native residents so they can rebuild a 'nice' place, they will shit a bunch of displaced residents out of their estates and buy out the remainder. So what if someone is disturbed about Google reminding everyone where the boundaries are and providing casual observers with overlay data or some shit. I don't think Google is doing anything wrong and if there /is/ a conspiracy, it ain't helping congress. Good for them.

What gave them the right to demand it?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I remember way back in Music Match V6.0 something that allowed mp3 file encoding from line in. I was using it to encode my old cassette tapes into mp3 to get them into my hard disk. Almost all my friends wanted to do it and when they downloaded the latest vestion of it, some V6.x, it had been taken out. Luckily I had not yet deleted the old ftp'ed zip file and I gave them to my friends. Despite all the hassles I never thought I had the right to demand MusicMatch to put back the line-in encoding functionality. It is their product, they do what they think is the best for them. How did that congress critter convince himself that one has the right to demand google to do this and not that?

What next? Would the congress demand Intuit to put back the QIF file import capability in Quicketn 2007. (They took it out in 2005). Demand Toyota to go back to using 18 spot welds on the spare tire well of the Camry instead of the 12? Would they demand Pittsbugh Plate Glass to go back to making 0.5 inch thick windshields instead of the present 0.25 inch thick ones? Today's Car Talk mentioned it.

Isn't the refrain, "They dont make it the way they used to" goes back a long ways? I dont know about google and toyota and PPG, but definitely in congress, they dont make them the way they used to. It looks like.

Re:What gave them the right to demand it?

[Scrameustache]

Luckily I had not yet deleted the old ftp'ed zip file and I gave them to my friends. Despite all the hassles I never thought I had the right to demand MusicMatch to put back the line-in encoding functionality. It is their product, they do what they think is the best for them. What gave them the right? The customer is always right.
If they get enough people clamouring for them to fix this downgrade, then people less lucky then you can use it in the future.

How did it come to be that a usefull feature should be removed? Did they decide that not capitalising on their investment in feature development made good business sense? Or did some group pressure them to give their customers less digital freedom? Who gave them the right to demand it?

Re:What gave them the right to demand it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily I had not yet deleted the old ftp'ed zip file and I gave them to my friends.

Oldversion.com could have helped out.

As a consumer...

[hedgemage]

As a consumer of Google products, I would like the information they provide to be as accurate, up to date, and as high a quality as possible.
If I bought a 2007 Thomas Guide map book and found that the maps it contained were less up-to-date than a previous version, I'd be pretty cheesed off. If Google is going to provide maps, they should be responsible enough to keep those maps reasonably up-to-date. The hurricane substantially altered significant areas of not just New Orleans, but the coastline and delta. If they have reverted to a less accurate map, then they are providing a disservice to their customers. Error or otherwise, it should be resolved.

Re:As a consumer...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Google Earth imagery is worth every penny you paid for it. You paid zero pennies for it and so at this point, you take what they give you or go use an alternative services. Both yahoo and msft are also offering sattelite imagery. Feel free to use them. But if you want to be guaranteed that the imagery you get is the most uptodate and accurate one, be prepared shell out some real money.

Re:As a consumer...

[SCHecklerX]

And how much money have you given google for this service they apparently are obliged to give to you? Maps could go away tomorrow. Tough cookies.

Re:As a consumer...

[ctnp]

... and it's certainly worth our tax money to have this issue in a house subcommittee - just so you can rest assured that the gub'ment has Google's consumer affairs on its docket?

Re:As a consumer...

[DerekLyons]

As a consumer of Google products, I would like the information they provide to be as accurate, up to date, and as high a quality as possible.

Then you should have no complaints about Google removing the imagery - as the 2006 imagery that has been in place (as an option) was no more accurate than any earlier imagery. (The 2006 imagery shows vast areas flooded - something not true today.)

Re:As a consumer...

[knewter]

Error or otherwise, it should be resolved. I agree with you. The part I disagree with is Congree getting involved in businesses'...business.

You have a very straightforward way to tell Google your opinion: stop using their products.

Welcome to the market. Enjoy your stay.

this is so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were CEO of google, my response would be "it's my God damned company".

  land of the free and whatnot....

Nor I

[Tatarize]

My guess is that the older preflood images were better. They were taken before the roads were washed away and that it's easier to see what is going on if you have an accurate map of the area. To tell a person that there is a road when the image only shows water makes maps a remarkably hard endeavor. Whereas roads are a secondary effect of google maps and so the most updated pictures are clearly the best.

your sig

[pbhj]

Do out of use (ancient) prison's count? If so, yes.

Do I get half a point for being tortured at a turkish bath in Istanbul?

Re:your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Do out of use (ancient) prison's count? If so, yes.
Do I get half a point for being tortured at a turkish bath in Istanbul?

Yes, but then you lost a half a point for thinking that an apostrophe is used to indicate a plural.

Why?

[igotmybfg]

Why is Congress asking them this? I just don't see why Congress should have any say in what Google puts on its own website.

Re:Why?

[kalidasa]

They are wondering if the Executive Branch has told Google what to put on its website, say to try to make it harder for people to determine just how bad things still are in the affected regions.

Re:Why?

[igotmybfg]

I would be shocked if the Bushies actually asked them that, and even more shocked if Google acquiesced to such a request (I am no Republican fanboy though). My guess would be Google did it because of: 1. a contractual obligation (admittedly unlikely), or 2. a technical glitch (slightly more likely), or 3. more/better satellite maps are available from before Katrina than after, or 4. something to do with the devastation messing with their routing/traffic directions functionality

Re:Why?

[igotmybfg]

And in any case, even though Google Maps/Earth is the most widely used mapping utility, there are definitely other ones out there.

just some work

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it is anything.
To prove how google does stupid go back in time tricks I submit this.
google map
That is supposed to be Chicago's Northerly Island and it is marked as so. Northerly Island was a small airport(Meigs) on the lakefront of Chicago. Our sneaky bastard mayor carved big X's in it, got in trouble, and then turned it into a very nice outdoor concert area.
Why am I telling you this story? Very simply.
I have seen the google maps images show that spot in chicago, change from meigs--->meigs with Xs--->back to orginal meigs---->consurction of northerly island--->a combo orginal meigs and meigs with Xs----> completed northly island---->and now the orginal meigs
Also, if you scroll left(ie east) you will see Soldier Field.... in the middle of the renovation construction. I have also seen google maps have a completed Soldier Field with grass on the field, but then they changed it back to the construction. I am waiting to see if they will go back even further and have the old soldier field one day.
So in conclusion. Google is Fed up. The going back pre-Katrina probably doesn't mean anything.

Perhaps they're more up to date

[im_thatoneguy]

Bear with me. I know that it doesn't sound reasonable but it is. Perhaps the Pre-Katrina maps better reflect the *current* state of the vast majority of areas affected by Katrina. Just like maps prior to the asian tsunami are now wildly out of date and ones previoius to the tsunami may better reflect the current state of vegetation and industry.

Re:Perhaps they're more up to date

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, prior and previous are synonyms.

Re:Perhaps they're more up to date

[Scrameustache]

maps prior to the asian tsunami are now wildly out of date and ones previoius to the tsunami may better reflect the current state Whointhewhatnow?

Re:Perhaps they're more up to date

[im_thatoneguy]

Lol. Stupid slip of the keyboard. Maps after the tsunami may now be wildly out of date and ones prior to the tsunami may actually better reflect the current state...

Google Earth's images of Austin recently changed..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Austin area has better images now - the over all color matches the surroundings better, and I think it's higher resolution, but it's not obviously newer....

show land, not water

[stupefaction]

If pre-Katrina aerial photographs are an inferior representation of the Gulf Coast geography, then isn't it also true that snow-free pictures of Montana and Minnesota are inferior? In other words, if you think post-Katrina photos would be more accurate, then you should also agree that snowed-over photos of the northern states would be more accurate. Reductio ad absurdum.

Re:???? DIGG PPL

[clawoo]

ZOMG RLY? WILL DO KTHX BAI! I believe that the only thing wrong with /. is allowing people like you to post around. But that is just me. Ow wait, I have mod points. Mod me down, but I enjoyed doing this. (no I haven't modded and posted in the same thread. yet.)

I'd say RTFA...

[Dorceon]

...but the relevant quote is in the summary.

Miller asked Google... to disclose if Google was contacted by the city, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey or any other government entity about changing the imagery.

FEMA certainly has nothing to gain from the post-Katrina imagery being visible, so if they 'asked' Google to change things, maybe that should receive public scrutiny.

Re:Huh? - Example Image

[dickeya]

There is absolutely no difference between the free and paid Google Earth database. The paid version renders faster, has some added client features, but the imagery always comes from the same place.

Let's speculate

[Anonymous Coward]

Say, for instance, their post-Katrina images were obtained under an agreement which has since expired (I recall they got the images quite soon after the disaster). The obvious solution would be to roll back to the older images (which they still have the right to show), until they obtain more recent images (from their usual source, instead of from an emergencial one).

That's only one of the several possible non-malicious, non-mistake scenarios. How about speculating on which one is the right one?

Great to see the democratic priorities.

[kinglink]

Seriously, doing a witch hunt at google to find out if some unnamed source told them to revert the images? Then what do you do? Publicly shame them (of course if they are controlled by the opposite party should be implied).

This seems about as wasteful and useless as anything. Claiming it's "airbrushing history" is just grasping for justication.

Surprising mistake by Google

[brunes69]

By not taking the curvature of the earth into account with these directions, they have made your swim much longer than it needs to be :)

Re:Surprising mistake by Google

[Temporal]

By not taking the curvature of the earth into account with these directions, they have made your swim much longer than it needs to be

Indeed. Noting this, [Congressional subcommittee chair Brad] Miller was quoted as saying, "To use a straight line path across the map when greater circular paths are shorter without some explanation as to why appears to be fundamentally dishonest."

very odd

[user24]

given this: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/post-katrin a-images-of-new-orleans-on.html

When congress funds google maps

[artifex2004]

...THEN they can bitch and moan about them being out of date.

No government organization should be using a free, third party map and satellite provider for maps and photos they make big decisions from, anyway.
We have the US Geological Survey, as well as offices with and without acknowledged acronyms, to generate all the maps and photos Congress needs.

Better question

[baomike]

Why should my tax dollars go to support people?

Re: Beggars cant be choosers.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Musicmatch was a free software. When you give something away, you have all the right to change what you give away. That is what Musicmatch did. Infact it is nothing more than the right of companies to increase the price of their products as they deem fit. Google maps are free. They have all the right to change what they give away or start charging for it. You, as a consumer, have the right not to buy the product if it is not worth what you are paying for it. But as the age old saying goes, beggars cant be choosers.

And once again...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Philip K. Dick proves to be remarkably prescient.

True, however

[Sycraft-fu]

There is something to be said for the plan of building the actual port where it is and moving the rest of the city (at least the parts below sea level) a little further away. In fact such a plan was suggested in the reconstruction. Given that everything is trashed and has to be rebuilt anyhow, it is a perfect time to fix some things like that. Well it was shot down as "racist" (not sure how that works) so no go.

While I agree that tax money is well spent rebuilding infrastructure I think it is reasonable to say that perhaps we should do what we can to move things so that this doesn't happen again. Also I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if you choose to live in an area that has floods, you should have to buy flood insurance to get coverage.

Re:True, however

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it was shot down as "racist" (not sure how that works) so no go.

The racist part is when a segment of a population get an enormous amount of money just by exclaming that they are being discriminated against.

Re:True, however

[Anonymous Coward]

Building houses and such to withstand normal rain-water floods is pretty easy and not really a problem. Moving New Orleans isn't really an option to New Orleanians. It's a huge cultural hub, with pretty deep history. And there are also alot of stupid stubborn people (remember the people sitting on their rooftops shooting at rescue helicopters to get their attention?). In all reality people don't really have to move because you can build houses to withstand amounts of still standing water (rain water flooding). The problem is when you get massive tidal/storm surges pushing more (and additionally salt) water onto that flooded area it becomes a catastrophe.

Being under sea level makes life interesting engineering wise (they have to pump water out instead of naturally drain it) and there will definitely be hurricanes that New Orleans can't take but Katrina could have not happened. The problem was politics, money, and prioritizing. In 2004 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised and told the US Executive branch they needed $22.5 million to work on the basics, the Executive branch said no, only $3.9 million (probably because we were moving money to fund a war), Congress allocated like $5.5 million that year. If I remember correctly that would mostly have just been building up the levees though, which might not have solved the Katrina problem. Blame can't just be placed with the money allocaters however, as far back as 1994 the Corps of Engineers suggested a series of flood gates that would help prevent water from the gulf from entering Lake Pontchartrain in the event of tidal surges (there would still be flooding from rain water because then the water pumped out into the lake wouln't have anywhere to drain then but minor to moderate standing water damage is way better than massive salt water flooding). Enviromentalists and residents were worried about their view of the lake or the possible effects on wild life and so that plan was killed. If they had built those gates i'd bet money the levees wouldn't have broke. Sure there would have been pretty bad flooding, but nowhere near the damage.

Now we get to spend 100 times what needed to be spent because people were too stupid to listen to the engineers who designed the levee systems in the first place. They were lucky before and only had minor flooding and so they figured they'd be lucky again and it bit them in the ass. And yes, we could put every prevention system in place and a category 5 hurricane could directly hit new orleans and totally rape it. But that pretty much happens to anything hit by a category 5 hurricane.

This is bogus

[briancnorton]

"To use older, pre-Katrina imagery when more recent images are available without some explanation as to why appears to be fundamentally dishonest

Google Earth/Maps are geospatial tools for navigation, data visualization, aggregation, etc. It is NOT a political weapon, and it is not an ELT for interpreting imagery. If you have imagery of flooded streets or debris covered areas, you DON'T USE IT for navigation. You use imagery that shows the streets and matches your vector data.

Re:This is bogus

[/dev/trash]

Young Padawin, you soon will learn. Everything is political.

not the only thing/time

[smartyknickers]

This is obviously a fairly big event so something else may be afoot, but..

where I live in sunny old England local.live.com used to have more up-to-date pictures of the estate I live in; its still being built so fairly easy to date when pictures were taken.

Now though for some reason they've reverted to an older set of pictures and my whole area is just grassland!! (images >3 years old! the previous ones were ~1 year old)!

Just to make the point that this happens elsewhere for (presumably) non-political reasons as well.

umm?

[kurtis25]

Ohh i have a good idea why doesn't the government stick it's nose into private business. Maybe Google should investigate every time congress doesn't do something they way they want. If people don't want Google to use the old images they won't use Google maps for that area and Google will get the picture (get it picture as in satellite picture) and make a change. I'm sure there are reasons. Does Google have updated road maps? if not then their hybrid maps won't work at all well. Are the old images clearer? are they easier to view? is debris cluttering up the new photos?

Think of the child^H^H^H^H geographers!

[Wabbit Wabbit]

It's hard enough for those poor geographers to find work! Now you want to take away one of their few sources of opportunity?

IANAG, but still.

so what

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not like they have some obligation to authentic representation. It's none of the gov't business why they changed it.

Best question

[UbuntuDupe]

Why should my tax dollars go to support robots?

Once the AI is good enough, they'll just kill us anyway.

Pssst...

[Etherwalk]

'twas outrage or exasperation counched in seeming disbelief. My naivete is limited to more useful topics, which I can't think of right now but which probably have something to do with soft fuzzy toys, shiny knick-knacks, or chocolate bunnies.

Lets rebuild...

[3seas]

...anyone got a map of the way it was?

All in all, It wouldn't hurt for there to be a way to get a date on any map block/photo.

Overlay street maps??? imagine all those old maps are ..... not representing what we have today...

The only issue here is one of time line notice.

This isn't new by any means

[smartfart]

It's been at least a year that Google maps put "sanitized" versions of New Orleans, Waveland, etc. up on their site. I know the post-Katrina images are pretty depressing, but I'm much rather have valid data, since I live in Chocolate Town and rely on on-line maps.

great comment - thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU. It is so good to see a decent clear headed person. I am so miserable lately that I want to
jump off a bridge. The US GOV has rotted so badly, allowing in only crooks and keeping capable people out of goverment. We have got to do something!!!!!!!!
(five pages of exclamation marks)

Re: Beggars cant be choosers.

[Scrameustache]

Musicmatch was a free software. When you give something away, you have all the right to change what you give away. [...] beggars cant be choosers. Notice, will you, that I didn't say they didn't have the right to do it. I don't know what hypothetical point you think you're replying to, but it isn't one of mine. What I did say was that I don't think it was their idea to drop a working feature, I think they got a threatning letter from your usual suspects.

And I beg to differ: I got a free software that does line-in recording to mp3 (or ogg or whatever you need, really), there IS choice.

They didn't change Hurricane Rita area pics

[pair-a-noyd]

I live where Rita struck in 05. We took a direct hit from the eye, I live at ground zero.
I brought up google maps and google earth (linux) and both are showing POST hurricane photos, at least for the area that Rita hit..
I even know the approximate date of the photos because of my roof and yard, I put a white metal roof on the house in spring of 06 but still had trees down in the back yard, so it's my guess that the google maps photos of our area were taken around April or May of 06.

The previous google photos of our area were at least 10 years old.
Several other aerial photo services such as M$ and two or three others all have very outdated photos of our area.

I still think google is evil to the core and I avoid using them at all costs, I won't use google search at all anymore, I prefer http://clusty.com/

Your sig.

[toygar.ozturk]

What is your point? Have you ever been to one?

Caught in the act!

[Viceroy Potatohead]

The real reason for this is obvious: Katrina never happened. It was a ploy to discredit the administration, and Google proved it. Now if Google want to do some real good, they should roll back all images of New Jersey to show the actual Gulf of Trenton, in all its natural glory. We'd all sleep easier.

That is bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have imagery that shows a large commercial building on an otherwise undistinguished corner that actually contains an open field full of weeds, you DON'T USE IT for navigation.

We're not talking about images during the flood, we're talking about images that don't show buildings and sometimes streets, recent photos.

Of course, that's only the most extreme cases. Most buildings are still standing, gutted, but still standing. The satellite photo s really only differ from the pre-K photos because they don't show any cars in the neighborhoods.

Typical politcal journalism

[Nymz]

House Panel: Why did Google 'airbrush history?'
This choice of title says it all, with its inciting headline and implication of guilt, that avoids describing the actual situation.

I know, I know... reporters aren't supposed to interview people, or do research, or even report speculative rumors in a responsible manner. Inflammatory headlines and conspiracy politics is the name of the game. Months ago, Google replaced the low-resolution images, that were acquired post-haste post-Katrina, for an older set of high-resolution images. You can still view the low-resolution set via Google Earth.

Nothing to see here, move along... unless you would like to jump on the politcal mudslinging bandwagon, and insert a Bush, 6 years, FEMA, hates black people remark. *sigh*

Bad date info

[Animats]

The stuff on google is often 5+ years old for some parts of the county (the copyright date gets updated, but the images do not)

I've noticed that. That's a violation of copyright law, by the way.

The question is who is setting those dates. Maybe Google's data providers are advancing the copyright date improperly, causing Google's image aggregation system to replace images with ones that are actually older.

Re:Bad date info

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the data source for the US is the USGS and/or state GIS/orthoimagery departments. The copyright date gets updated because the display as shown is generated when you look at it, and that is what is copyrighted, not the image mapped to the display. Anyway, for most states, you can get the raw images from a state orthoimagery repository and use a free MrSID viewer to view the file at a higher resolution than Google Earth serves it.

$6bill of tax money from citizens

[cheekyboy]

All that 6 billion came from citzens taxes, real income money from the population, FEMA didnt sell products or make the money honestly.

"Do No Evil"... what a load of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing how many people were suckered by the claimed benevolence of Google. Hell, I'll admit it, I was too.

In fact, I still find it hard to give up the Google Toolbar, even though I know they are tracking, cataloging, and indexing every damn thing I access them about anything, at least for the next 35 years... if not forever.

Is that a big deal? Well look at it this way: they log your MAC address and IP address, what your query was, and whatever other data they can grab. If you log in to GMail from there, they have a pretty good idea of who is using that computer... and thus who is making those queries. If you use Google from work and ever check GMail from there... they know where you work, and what computer you are using... and thus can STILL trace all your searches back to you.

Same for your mobile phone. And your PDA. And anything else which connects to the internet (or Google).

So... what's so scary about them keeping this info forever? Because if the government wants to get information about you, they are only required to go before a judge if they want info earlier than 5 years (assuming the government isn't routinely ignoring the law...). But if Google stores this info indefinitely, they will have years of data on you... which would be available by request.

Then they can know everything about you: what you searched for, what email you sent and received, where you where at and when (and possibly for how long), who you know, where THEY were and when, etc.

But as Slashdot as demonstrated time and time again... if Microsoft comes out against cancer, they need to become PRO-cancer. In their effort to embrace all things which aren't Microsoft, they gleefully promote the interests of a brutal monopolist with a history of playing fast and loose with other people's technology or property (Apple), and a company which has proven itself as willing to help governments track citizens and act as an internet 'thought police' (Google). Google has already proven willing and able to do so in China and other nations. What leads anyone to believe they won't do the exact same thing in the USA?

Re:"Do No Evil"... what a load of shit

[geniusj]

Your MAC address? And how do you suppose they do that?

google presents its internal services

[alizard]

like Google Maps as a source of free, useful, accurate information in order to sell ad exposure. Google's business model is based on "free ride" for consumers... paid for by advertisers like any other "free" commercial service. If Google gets known for inaccurate maps, who's going to buy Google Ads for a service nobody dares use?

The other point is that by and large, the commercial services sold by the software package and the advertiser-paid services often uses the same databases. So if you buy a $50 software package and a GPS and the combination leaves you in the middle of nowhere out of range of a cell phone tower, enjoy your walk to get help. And don't be offended when you complain about it here and people tell you to "get a life".

You're more likely to use Google Maps

[alizard]

because of a news story discussing how Google Maps is known to be wrong in a chunk of the USA?

You use Vista, right?

the GOP is desperately in need of candidates

[alizard]

So tell them you want to run, not us. You can find out who your local version of "them" is (probably a GOP County Central Committee) through google. Your platform is just fine. Alternately, see if the White House is hiring.

Remember Altavista?

[mangu]

When you on occasion not like the actions of your elected officials you would take corrective action at the next election, something you can't do with a Google.

Except that in a truly free society you don't need to wait for the next election to take corrective action. If you depend on a commercial entity in a capitalist economy you are free to change anytime if you are less than satisfied with the products and services rendered.

That's exactly how Google came to exist, people voted with their browsers to elect a new favorite search site. Feel free to vote differently if you are not perfectly satisfied with the current status.

Of course, all that depends on that society being free, which means it must have a free press to keep citizens informed of their options and rights, and it must have a liberal capitalistic economy, to let new corporations providing better products replace the older ones.

Google earth pro

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still log into a google earth server with post-katrina data.

You're supposed to wait for April 1st.

[argent]

If this is an April Fools prank it's a good one, but if it's not it should have been.

I mean, satellite image archives are not real time, and never have been real time. It wouldn't even occur to me to expect an image in a free satellite archive to be up-to-the-year up-to-date. They're continually updating their archives with higher resolution data, and it would be more amazing if the higher resolution imagery was never older than the lower resolution stuff it's replacing.

Google's response

[mick129]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/about-new-o rleans-imagery-in-google.html

Lack of money isn't to blame here

[fireboy1919]

The problem was corruption. I imagine that it still is, since New Orlean's mayor was reelected.

Money wasn't used right.

This is one of the areas that I had previously not heard about.

My company sees stuff related asset management - including disaster planning, and we've heard that money related to that was also diverted. So nobody locally knew what to do to get the national government involved after the levees burst.

I can't figure this out. The trail is clearly visible. If you look at where the money went you can see what money was wasted; you can see where self-interest superseded the good of everyone.

How should we, as a society deal with this problem? Rebuild the culture of New Orleans so that such a thing is impossible? Ignore it and spend money to make it exactly the same?

Personally, I've got no idea. For that matter, I don't know why this isn't common knowledge. I don't think that just putting money back into the same thing is the way to fix it, though. Removing corruption most likely means taking over a large portion of the government...which means killing a lot of the culture. Should we do that?

Re:Lack of money isn't to blame here

[lawpoop]

I agree with you that corruption, which includes mis-management of money, is the problem that created the tragedy of New Orleans.

However, I disagree that the libertarian perspective that government is the problem, and not the solution, is wrong, also. I've spent a decent amount of time in South America where there is only corrupt government. There are places like small, out-of-the-way villages, where the everyday person has immense personal freedom, but the problem is something like getting a bridge built properly can't happen without some form of government, whether it's the local or national government, or an international aid project. So the people are able to make a living without paying taxes, but in the village, all the homes are one or two stories, the streets are unpaved, there is no sewer system, no electricity, etc. etc. When a bridge collapses, or the road or runway washes out, it just stays down, and the people work around it. However, the community is never able to organize themselves enough to build a new bridge or clear the runway. Their lifestyle just downsizes. They start backpacking materials across a foot-bridge, instead of trucking it across the river. They take a three-day bus instead of an hour-long flight. They light their homes with candles and cook with wood, instead of electricity and gas.

I never see libertarians migrating to places without government, like Somalia. They love to stay in America, where we have an excellent public infrastructure, created by functioning, representative government, and then complain that government creates problems. I think it's naive. Areas without government are controlled by warlords, and such societies are even more corrupt, and people have fewer opportunities to improve their life. In every civilization, from the Romans to the Incans, monumental public architecture, such as well-maintained roads, bridges, and public buildings have always been the domain of government. It's no different today.

We need properly-functioning representative government, not corrupt government. Getting rid of government because it is corrupt to various degrees is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What the right solution is, in my mind, is to pressure the government is to get rid of corruption, and make government more responsible to the needs of the people.

Re:Lack of money isn't to blame here

[fireboy1919]

I don't disagree with you. I don't agree with you either. :)

I'm not entirely sure that this situation is like the one you're talking about. There is a representative government there. The problem isn't the kind of government, it's the people running it. The corruption is the government. Fixing it means replacing it with a nonlocal government, which means not doing things in the best interest of the local community - working, rather, towards the nation as a whole.

Interesting that you chose to talk about the Romans and the Incans - two cultures that absorbed, but mostly *destroyed* the cultures of the peoples they assimilated in their own interest. Obviously doing that will solve the problem. Along the same lines, brainwashing will get someone to do what you want. To me it's a question of picking the lesser of two evils...unless there's a third option I'm not aware of. Personally, I don't have a clue what the best option is.

Re:Lack of money isn't to blame here

[lawpoop]

I was reading over your post, and I think I kind of misread it. I think we probably do agree more than we disagree. It's easy to point out situations like Katrina where supposed representative government has failed, but the everyday stories, where government has worked for the most part for hundreds of years, such as, say, New York or Pennsylvania. There are spectacular failures that capture attention, but the quiet examples of the system mostly working don't get capture the imagination.

That's not to say that there is no corruption -- no system is perfect. But I think for the most part, you can consider it a success. There is a pendulum of corruption and cleansing of the system, and it oscillates back and forth. Corruption creeps in, and eventually when it affects enough people's daily lives, they start protesting and demanding a cleaning. Then some politician makes a career out of cleaning up the system, does some cleaning, and things improve. Then the system slowly corrupts again, and the cycle repeats.

I guess I would say that if the government is corrupt, it's not truly representative government. Instead it's a patron system, where it's who you know, or who you have paid off, instead of government representing the expressed interest of the people. In name, it is representative government, but in reality it's not, if it can be bought, or if favors are traded.

You are right, that the Incans and Romans are conquering, Imperial governments. But, the thing is, the lifestyle and culture we are used to here in the US can only be created by Imperial government. If we were without that kind of government, we would also be without public infrastructure.

We can go to a system where the is little to no government, but then we would have the infrastructure we are used to, like highways, electricity, sewers, gas pipelines, cities with skyscrapers, etc. I've spent some time in small, out-of-the way villages that are "off the grid" and "outside the system". Nothing gets accomplished that's bigger than one extended family can do. So you only have small houses or huts, maybe a church (and usually those are organized and driven with the structure of the sponsoring church organization, not just the families). No bridges or sewers. No infrastructure. You can only have what you can backpack in, or float in on a boat, or collect in the woods.

I enjoy those types of social structures (life is simpler), but I also enjoy living in a city with lots of infrastructure ( you have much more creature comforts and entertainment). A lot of technophile, libertarians geeks really are unaware of the benefits of government that they just take for granted. They think it happens in spite of government, but I haven't seen a case where that happens. Small villages just can't maintain paved roads or build a concrete bridge, much less run an internet. I'm not saying it can't happen; I just haven't seen it, and at this point I am suspicious of the libertarian paradise of no government. There are such places, like war-torn Somalia, or the middle of the amazon, where you could get speared for looking at someone the wrong way. There is no way to improve your lot in those societies. People basically live the way their parent have lived for dozens of generations back, until the village starts becoming more involved in whatever Imperial government it belongs to. Instead of having new technology and improved medicine, they learn the old traditions, such as bow hunting, herbal medicine, and small-scale garden plot farming, for thousands of years.

I've met very few libertarians who would truly be comfortable living in a small village, but if we give up Imperial government, even if is a responsible, representative government, with built-on checks on government, we give up a lot that we are used to here in the US. I think at this point, we have to do the best we can with a system we know has worked in the past. As far as the future, I am in favor of direct democracy.

Re:your sig ... damn

[pbhj]

damnation and I couldn't even swing it to claim there was an excluded word that made it all work ... my only defense is that I wasn't taught to write proper at skool

Are you Serious??

[pinkrose]

This just shows how the govrnment has us all on strings. They just go around bullying people so that "we" can look "good". In the tragic events occurring after Hurricane Katrina, the government messed up, plain and simple. So in an effort to hide their mistakes they ask a private company to change the pics of the disaster will no reasoning. The people of the US deserve to see the current pics., not something that use to be.