Google Pulls Map Images At Pentagon's Request

I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · 2008-03-07 02:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

...how or why this is a bad thing.

Do we think there should be street level maps inside military installations on Google Street View?

Whether someone "screwed up" in the meantime, at Google, the installation, or both, is beside the point of whether the imagery should be removed.

The issue of how/why the crew was granted access, whether it was a gated or "open" installation, etc., are all unanswered.

Re:I'm trying to discover... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 02:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is a bad thing because it provides a VERY detailed description of the base and it's buildings. I'm far from a hawk but providing any potential enemy with detailed pictures of military installations is just plain stupid. I would think that the danger in this sort of information would be self-evident. Then again I don't believe that Google has any right to put pictures of my house, or any one else's for that matter, on the Internet.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by tha_mink · 2008-03-07 02:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm trying to discover how or why this is a bad thing Are you serious? Really? You're trying to discover why having street level view of military bases is a bad thing? Or you're trying to discover why having Google pull it is a bad thing? Either way, the situation and post seem to be fairly evident to me.

The asshat that said "Sure Google, film our military installation all you'd like..." is bad.

Pulling it from google is not bad.

I'm pretty sure that's what you meant. I don't think the poster was trying to imply that google pulling it was a bad thing, merely noteworthy that it got shot in the first place.

--
You'll have that sometimes...
Re:I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · 2008-03-07 03:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, I did mean that Google pulling them was not a bad thing. But a lot of people here will think it is.

And yes, I agree this is noteworthy, but the tone of the article is likely to be interpreted by many here as somehow negative; i.e., that a private company is "censoring" content at the request of the "government". Other posters have already said, essentially, "What's the big deal? This is all stuff I can see with my own eyes anyway!" Read through the rest of the posts and see for yourself.

Also, it seems very likely this was an ungated, or open, facility (as many large/urban installations are, which then have other levels of restricted access for controlled areas). Google probably formally asked permission to drive around, was granted it, and was allowed to drive around (since in this type of facility they are streets that are effectively accessible to the public). I find it very unlikely that this was a closed/gated/restricted facility that Google was just granted access to simply by asking. In fact, that is almost certainly NOT the case.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by qoncept · 2008-03-07 03:01 · Score: 1

...how or why this is a bad thing.
Go to wikipedia and look up OPSEC. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but use your imagination, man.

Do we think there should be street level maps inside military installations on Google Street View?
The military asked to have them removed. Obviously not.

--
Whale
Re:I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · 2008-03-07 03:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Obscurity isn't an exclusive substitute for security.

But any good security model employs security in depth, including elements from security by design and security through obscurity. In fact, it's foolish to not do both.

I'm sorry, but the justification that anyone can get onto some ungated bases and drive/walk around is absolutely no excuse for Google Street View coverage of US military installations.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by kellyb9 · 2008-03-07 03:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Come on, man. How long have you been Slashdot? You are obligated in all cases to say something negative about the US and censorship to get modded up that high. It helps ending with a comment about how the world is going to shit and you how you need to move to Canada. Something obviously went wrong here. But in all seriousness, you're dead on. It's suprised to see the Pentagon is actually on top of this. This means there must be some efficiency in the system. Speaking from experience, I don't really know how or why Google was given access. You typically have to jump through hoops just to get on one of these military bases. I almost think that Google probably should've known better, but thats just me.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 03:07 · Score: 0

You know, the US government should create a department that would oversee the security of the continental USofA. They could call it, "The Department of Homeland Security" or something catchy like that. They could install gates at military installations, and ensure that people that are on base have a legitimate [and safe] reason to be there.

Nah, that would never work...

I wonder if "Post Anonymously" can protect me from those DHS people without an appreciation for sarcasm...
Re:I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · 2008-03-07 03:08 · Score: 1

Story -> Google Pulls Map Images At Pentagon's Request

Reply -> How or why this is a bad thing?

"this" = Google pulling the images

Make more sense now?
Re:I'm trying to discover... by qoncept · 2008-03-07 03:13 · Score: 1

Got it. I didn't read anything in the original post that implied it was a bad thing. Guess we read it differently.

--
Whale
Re:I'm trying to discover... by nolife · 2008-03-07 03:17 · Score: 1

Okay, obviously the area is not secured or completely off limits to someone, after all, Google got in. All a terrorist would have to do is the same thing, walk around or drive around, take some pictures, study the area for a few hours/minutes and they will have all of the same information.
I think terrorists are not working spontaneously, their actions are thought out and planned WAY in advance. Its not like a bar fight were someone losses it and grabs a gallon of gas from the bed of their truck and comes back a few minutes later to burn the place down. I feel removing small things that might provide some information is not going to break up a plan as they will work around it or gain the information another way. Now maybe if they have to show up in person to get these recon photos they may be noticed and followed and the plot is uncovered? Hoping that happens does not make me feel any safer.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by SnapShot · 2008-03-07 03:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I willing to play devil's advocate and say that it is a bad thing. Or, at least, the presumption that everything associated with the U.S. government should be kept secret from her citizens. In a democracy, everything paid for by taxpayer dollars should be open unless there is a real national security reason that it should be kept secret. And, I'm not convinced that there was a national security reason for Google to take down those images; it was probably some "cover my ass" action.

Every scandal in the last 7 years has been accompanied by a chorus from the right telling us that public exposure to incompetence (Walter Reed) or malfeasance (billions of dollars lost to contractors in Iraq) or law breaking (torture and warrantless wiretaps) are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemies. But, it is obvious that the real desire for secrecy is not to protect America but to protect the careers and reputations of the people who fucked up in the first place.

--
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by bkr1_2k · 2008-03-07 03:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Reread the grandparent. I think you missed the point, in that the GP agrees with your sentiment. The post basically said it was not a bad thing that the images were pulled, not that the GP thought the images should be available.

--
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Quickening · 2008-03-07 03:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait

thank you, lone voice of reason. I glanced at these comments only to verify how clueless most Americans are.

--
tcboo
Re:I'm trying to discover... by bkr1_2k · 2008-03-07 03:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Open to citizen John Q Public when he's actually there is one thing and available to anyone with an internet connection is entirely different.

I don't disagree that there was likely no "national security" reason to take the images down, but think of the long term strategic possibilities or even personal safety concerns. The Presidio of Monterey, for example is an open base. It's where the Defense Language Institute is and all services send their soldiers/airmen/marines/seamen there to learn languages that typically are then used in Intelligence collection of one form or another. Aside from the personal safety of the individual servicemen and women, think of the long term strategic advantage gained by targeting a particular area there. One school perhaps, that covers a particular asian or middle eastern language. You can hamper intelligence collection significantly by one well placed attack.

Sure, it's highly unlikely that someone would do such a thing, but it's certainly a viable target even though it isn't considered such by most folks. Many "open" bases are similar in that they support an infrastructure that is key to the military but not an obvious target.

I don't disagree that our government has lost its sense of decency with respect to oversight and we should try to take some of that back, but denying world-wide access to potential military targets shouldn't be part of that, in my opinion.

--
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 04:03 · Score: 1, Funny

Somebody please mod parent (-1, Ann Coulter).
Re:I'm trying to discover... by _Sprocket_ · 2008-03-07 04:08 · Score: 1

I'm trying to discover...
...how or why this is a bad thing. You know - I don't think anyone actually said it WAS a bad thing. It's interesting. It touches on something we know; interesting tech that tends to draw a lot of debate. That makes it news. But I'm not seeing anything that says there's something to be upset about.

I suppose it's the nature of these things. Slashdot covers so many negative things that its gotten to the point one almost expects it. It almost goes against conditioning to see and article as anything but interesting.

Unless, of course, your hobby involves manufacturing controversy. There are plenty of individuals around Slashdot who do. So they will. But I suspect they'll be largely ignored as there's not really much to debate about here. Just go "huh - interesting" and move on (or feel free to swap stories about military life and security).
Re:I'm trying to discover... by PapaSmurph · 2008-03-07 04:16 · Score: 2, Informative

For those of you who have never been on a military installation, there is a sign as you enter that says "Photography Prohibited". You can't take pictures on a military base. I'm guessing the pictures were pulled because they were taken without permission, not because there was anything secret in them. It's a matter of policy.
As for the people who let them on the installation, I'm guessing they weren't military. There's a lot of "rent-a-cops" "protecting" military bases right now.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · 2008-03-07 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's fine to play devil's advocate, but can you really argue there is no compelling national security reason to not have easily navigable and searchable street level photography of military installations, even ones which are quasi-open/public, online?

You acknowledge that secrecy and classification systems have a purpose, but then go on to say that "every scandal" in the last "7 years" (interesting choice of timeframe; poilitical much?) have used secrecy arguments as an excuse. You then seem to make the logical leap that any use of secrecy in the last 7 years has been to cover up corruption (and this has never happened at any other time in US history...?).

Consider this: gathering foreign intelligence outside of the United States on non-US Persons has ALWAYS been allowable without any form of court oversight or warrants. As it should be. Now, there are two issues:

1. Some exclusively foreign traffic between foreign individuals can now travel through equipment located physically in the United States. Why should that be off limits? Indeed, if telecommunications operators are willing to assist, we should absolutely leverage the fact that we have direct access to the traffic.

2. Capturing communications of a foreign individual outside of the US -- even if the other end of the conversation ended on US soil or was a US Person -- is also always allowable without court oversight or warrants (however, the identity and conversation content of the US Person may be masked for legal reasons). Again, since warrants protect individuals, why shouldn't telecommunications operators be allowed to voluntary assist in the interception of such traffic via much, much easier means?

Foreign intelligence is a necessity, even for free nations. It always has been. Any denial of this is the denial of reality. The Constitution only applies to US citizens or persons with a legal status within the United States. It does NOT apply to foreign persons outside of the US; any argument that it does flies in the face of the very notion of nation-states, borders, and international relationships. This is precisely why the surveillance of such persons does not require a warrant. In the past, there was no earthly reason to conduct any such surveillance within the United States. Now there is.

I'm not saying taking such surveillance of non-US Persons within the United States' physical borders isn't rife with controversy, much of it valid. But can you see how it's possible for this to not be so clear cut when you just throw out the blanket statement that it's "illegal"? Can you actually envision a scenario in which the Intelligence Community is trying to aggressively leverage all of the foreign SIGINT capability it possibly can given the circumstances? I know that certain folks can only see this as an obvious plot to destroy the Constitution, strip away civil liberties, and create a police state. However, where I live -- aka, the real world -- this was simply an aggressive attempt to make a lot of foreign intelligence collection, especially when one of the endpoints is in the US, a lot more practical. That doesn't mean it's not controversial.

And Walter Reed...I try watching the "exposés" on Walter Reed, and you know what? Kill me for saying this, but water damage on some ceiling tiles and peeling paint? Is that really affecting the level of care? This is what people are up in arms about? Granted, there are a wide variety of other problems with military medical care and facilities, but they're not classified.

This isn't to say that secrecy has never been used to cover up for corruption or illegal behavior. But you're making some sweeping statements and coming to conclusions that aren't warranted. There is a compelling national security interest to not have easy-to-use street level photography of US military installations available globally. Basic principles of operational security and defense in depth would easily validate that. Does that mean some
Re:I'm trying to discover... by russ1337 · 2008-03-07 04:32 · Score: 1

think of the long term strategic advantage gained by targeting a particular area there. One school perhaps, that covers a particular asian or middle eastern language. You can hamper intelligence collection significantly by one well placed attack.
This... article explains that we too often fall for protecting ourselves from our fears, when it is actually quite irrational based on the probability of what you've suggested.
And we're making it harder by disclosing more risks than ever to more people than ever. Not only does all of this disclosure make us feel helpless, but it also gives us ever more of those images and experiences that trigger the intuitive response without analytical rigor to override the fear.
Anyway, you don't need Google streetview. You can go straight to their website for driving directions and a advice on getting a visitor pass.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 04:33 · Score: 0

I wonder if "Post Anonymously" can protect me from those DHS people without an appreciation for sarcasm... Of course it can. We^H^H They have no way to track you and do not watch slashdot. Keep posting.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 04:49 · Score: 0

You can try.

I willing to play devil's advocate and say that it is a bad thing. Or, at least, the presumption that everything associated with the U.S. government should be kept secret from her citizens.
Nobody is advocating any such thing. These are street level views of military installations. so your logic fails.

In a democracy, everything paid for by taxpayer dollars should be open unless there is a real national security reason that it should be kept secret. And, I'm not convinced that there was a national security reason for Google to take down those images; it was probably some "cover my ass" action.

once again these are street level views of military installations. military installations, by their very nature are there for national security. So your logic fails here as well.
Every scandal in the last 7 years has been accompanied by a chorus from the right telling us that public exposure to incompetence (Walter Reed) or malfeasance (billions of dollars lost to contractors in Iraq) or law breaking (torture and warrantless wiretaps) are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemies. But, it is obvious that the real desire for secrecy is not to protect America but to protect the careers and reputations of the people who fucked up in the first place.

These images have nothing to do with protecting careers, oversight failure or law enforcement. They aren't going to show anything useful in that respect. I know this is going to hurt, but just try and ting about every item you have named as then ask yourself if a street level imagery would really be that useful?
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Bryansix · 2008-03-07 04:50 · Score: 1

You typically have to jump through hoops just to get on one of these military bases. I almost think that Google probably should've known better, but thats just me.
Not all military bases are closed. One of the largest bases in the nation as far as land size (not population) is Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. FLW or "Fort Lost in the Woods" as I like to call it is a completely open base.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by toolie · 2008-03-07 04:59 · Score: 1

There are several Army posts that are open. There are no Air Force bases that are.

--
-- toolie
Re:I'm trying to discover... by tha_mink · 2008-03-07 05:13 · Score: 1

I willing to play devil's advocate and say that it is a bad thing. Or, at least, the presumption that everything associated with the U.S. government should be kept secret from her citizens. In a democracy, everything paid for by taxpayer dollars should be open unless there is a real national security reason that it should be kept secret. And, I'm not convinced that there was a national security reason for Google to take down those images; it was probably some "cover my ass" action. Really. First off, the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Semantics I guess. I don't think there's a real good argument out there for a need for there to be "street view" images of a United States military installation. Do you? Do you not see how that could be bad? That would put the level of your stupidity right up there with the guy who approved it in the first place I guess, so you're not alone?

--
You'll have that sometimes...
Re:I'm trying to discover... by tha_mink · 2008-03-07 05:18 · Score: 1

Hey. Stop right there! That was a totally rational, logical and succinct post that didn't totally bash or belittle any political affiliation...

What the hell are you doing here?

--
You'll have that sometimes...
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Taevin · 2008-03-07 05:26 · Score: 1

You then seem to make the logical leap that any use of secrecy in the last 7 years has been to cover up corruption (and this has never happened at any other time in US history...?).
What are you saying here? That corruption and covering it up is acceptable in the present day simply because we've had corrupt men in power before?
1. Some exclusively foreign traffic between foreign individuals can now travel through equipment located physically in the United States. Why should that be off limits? Indeed, if telecommunications operators are willing to assist, we should absolutely leverage the fact that we have direct access to the traffic.
Basic decency? Human rights? Take Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Would you also endorse monitoring the traffic of US citizens? After all it passes through equipment physically located within the US, so it must be alright. If not, from where do US citizens draw their superior qualities that put them above the rest of the world in regard to basic respect for the individual?

Yes, it is the unfortunate reality that militaries and military intelligence are necessities. As long as the need for them exists, there will be instances where there is also a need to violate the human rights of someone, somewhere. That doesn't mean we need to take the arrogant approach and treat every non-US citizen as a second class human. When US citizens are surveilled, there is a formal process that must first take place to ensure (or at least help ensure) that it is an appropriate action. Personally, I don't see any reason why the same shouldn't take place for a non-US citizen but even if it doesn't, intelligence gathering should still be conducted in a respectful manner. Go after the targets of interest or relevance to national security, but why monitor and collect the personal information of everyone just because it passes through a router that just happens to be in the US?

For what it's worth, I really don't see this Google case as much of an issue either. As has been mentioned already, depending on the circumstances, Google probably should not have even had their request granted. Taking down photographs of in the inside of an active military base is a reasonable security precaution, is not an example of the government misusing secrecy or censorship, and should come as a surprise to no one. As far as I know, photography is very strictly forbidden on even the most unclassified military property.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Bud+Dickman · 2008-03-07 05:36 · Score: 1

"All a terrorist would have to do is the same thing, walk around or drive around, take some pictures, study the area for a few hours/minutes and they will have all of the same information."
You don't lock your door, do you? I mean - if someone wants to break into your house, they can break the lock so why bother locking at all? There are ways around the lock on your door.
Yeah, just because a step might not provide a complete solution doesn't mean you don't take that step in order to hinder others.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by architimmy · 2008-03-07 05:50 · Score: 1

If you were really interested in getting information about the layout of military installations there are probably more effective ways of getting that info. Using a little bit of social engineering one could easily exploit a great resource in the families of servicemembers or civilian staff who serve on those bases. Those people are less likely to realize what they are revealing and typically have fairly decent access to corners of the base or just daily operations info that you probably wouldn't expect. For instance while living overseas as a kid I could have given you a fairly good count and description of the air traffic and deployed aircraft at the base I lived at. Being that I was fascinated by the aircraft I could easily distinguish between the various configurations of the F-111 that flew in and out of the base and give you a count of the number of A-10 and AC-131 aircraft at the base. While a boy scout I regularly camped on military installations and training grounds and could give you information relevant to short range missile deployment before the end of the cold war. I played soccer literally next to one of the central communications monitoring facilities in Germany for years (we all knew it was there even though no one talked about it). In fact if we kicked our ball over the fence onto what was otherwise just a big pile of rocks an MP would come around the corner a few minutes later and throw it back to us. I remember going to the movie rental place across the parking lot from a large doppler radar installation at another base down the road. I could have easily described the layout of numerous military installations in middle school. By the time I was in high school and traveling for sports I had been to a number of overseas installations across europe. It's probably why every other commercial on the Armed Forces Network is about OPSEC (operations security).

Basically, I don't think people who care (Chinese People's Liberation Army) honestly need Google (they have keyloggers installed at the pentagon after all right?). Sometimes we tend to focus on the obvious for us, when a real intelligence professional would probably just view something like that as a bonus to their more effective and reliable means of collecting intelligence.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by megaditto · 2008-03-07 05:50 · Score: 1

What's the use of military secrecy in times of peace (esp. for a Superpower like us)?

That's like getting a guard dog and not posting a "beware of dog" sign or like getting a nuclear arsenal and keeping it a secret until you are attacked, or getting a red Ferrari and not using it to pick up hot chicks... Idiotic, in other words!

--
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · 2008-03-07 05:51 · Score: 1

What are you saying here? That corruption and covering it up is acceptable in the present day simply because we've had corrupt men in power before?

Um, no? I'm addressing the curious choice of the timeframe of "the last 7 years", not justifying any occurrences just because it has happened before.

Basic decency? Human rights?

That is a fundamentally different issue than whether court oversight or warrants are required for foreign intelligence collection outside of the United States. Neither is, in fact, required. If you believe foreign intelligence collection runs counter to basic decency or human rights, that is an entirely separate discussion; not the least of which would begin with the fact that any arguments that the US or Western nations should stop such collection would put them at a distinct, marked, and very real disadvantage on the world stage against governments who might not have have similar scruples.

Foreign intelligence is a reality.

Would you also endorse monitoring the traffic of US citizens? After all it passes through equipment physically located within the US, so it must be alright.

No, the argument isn't that all traffic passing through the US is fair game; the argument is that traffic of non-US Persons outside of the United States traveling through the United States should be fair game. There have traditionally been restrictions on intercepting traffic within the United States, because the implication was that it would be used to monitor US citizens. However, with the advent of the Internet and advanced telecommunications systems, the reality is that some traffic that is exclusively foreign is suddenly off-limits because it happens to be routed through the United States. That is, quite simply, ridiculous. The extension of this argument is that any foreign intelligence surveillance of non-US Persons outside of the United States should also be able to be use equipment physically located within the United States for monitoring when possible.

If not, from where do US citizens draw their superior qualities that put them above the rest of the world in regard to basic respect for the individual?

US Persons have greater rights and protections under the Constitution than do non-US Persons. As such, the monitoring of US Persons is carefully controlled, and requires court oversight in the form of judicial review and sworn court orders or warrants to execute. Foreign intelligence outside of the United States is subject to no similar legal restrictions or judicial oversight. It is an intelligence function of a sovereign nation; one that is performed by all nations in one form or another.

Yes, it is the unfortunate reality that militaries and military intelligence are necessities. As long as the need for them exists, there will be instances where there is also a need to violate the human rights of someone, somewhere. That doesn't mean we need to take the arrogant approach and treat every non-US citizen as a second class human. When US citizens are surveilled, there is a formal process that must first take place to ensure (or at least help ensure) that it is an appropriate action. Personally, I don't see any reason why the same shouldn't take place for a non-US citizen but even if it doesn't, intelligence gathering should still be conducted in a respectful manner. Go after the targets of interest or relevance to national security, but why monitor and collect the personal information of everyone just because it passes through a router that just happens to be in the US?

Now we really get to the meat of the argument. There is indeed a distinction between US Persons and everyone else. This doesn't mean that US citizens or residents are "better" than anyone else. What it means is that we have decided to afford protections, rights, and liberties to individuals who live in our system of government, those who come to visit, learn, or work here legally, and t
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Mister+Whirly · 2008-03-07 05:51 · Score: 1

If the public can see your house from the street, I don't see the problem with Goggle taking a picture. If you never wanted anyone to see your house, move to a remote area and put up a big fence/bushes/trees/ etc. or buy a big enough plot of land that your house can't be seen from public space. However, I do believe that any homeowner should be able to request that their picture be removed (at a certain zoom level).

Better yet, take a picture of your house yourself, and then copyright that image. When Google publishes your copyrighted work, you can then sue them!

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:I'm trying to discover... by bkr1_2k · 2008-03-07 05:51 · Score: 1

I never said I think it's a rational thing to "defend against your fears" or whatever you want to call it, just that there are real reasons to protect military information. Of course it's ridiculous to think that anything like my scenario is even remotely likely, but it is the military's job to be prepared for the worst and most unlikely events. Sad, but true.

Again, driving directions and advice on getting a visitor pass are not the same thing as detailed information on building and infrastructure locations that can be studied and analyzed from afar.

I'm not disagreeing that it's a bit tinfoil-hattish to protect the information, but there's no reason to provide it either. It serves no purpose for people who don't belong there in the first place and people who do belong there can get the information from the correct source.

--
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Keebler71 · 2008-03-07 05:57 · Score: 1

The Presidio of Monterey hasn't been an open base for years (unless they have reopenned it recently). When I was there in 2002 it was already closed as a result of 9-11. Ditto for every other base that used to be open. I haven't seen a single open base since 9-11.

--
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Ironsides · 2008-03-07 06:29 · Score: 1

Because where something is located in times of peace is also where it is located in times of war? Knowing where most of your potential enemies high value targets are in times of peace means you know where they are most likely to be in times of war. Further, if you strike first, it means you have a pretty good chance of catching them in that place too.

During the Cold War the approximate locations of Ballistic Missile Submarines were kept secret at all times. (note, that didn't prevent the other side from finding them periodically, just made it a hell of a lot harder) If either wanted to go to war with the other, the first thing would be to torpedo the missile subs to prevent a retaliation from them, for starters. Preventing the other side from knowing that keeps them safer. (note, not safe, just safer)

Keeping the location of buildings on base from others makes them harder to target with conventional weapons.

--
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Re:I'm trying to discover... by SnapShot · 2008-03-07 06:30 · Score: 1

I don't think there's a real good argument out there for a need for there to be...

I think you're looking at this the wrong way; you shouldn't need a "good argument" to release government information, you should have to have a good argument to keep it secret.

Our outlook towards government information should be patterned after the "presumption of innocence" of our common law. In other words, "taxpayer funded information should be free unless an independent body determines it must be secret for the common good". Currently, the assumption of too many people is that "taxpayer funded information should be secret unless a bureaucrat allows it to be released to the public". I think that's the wrong attitude in a free society.

Now, as far as this specific anecdote is concerned (taking off my devil's advocate hat now), it's likely that a independent panel would determine that street level views of a military base might be worthy of censorship, but don't leave that decision to some unknown and unnamed functionary.

--
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by J2000_ca · 2008-03-07 07:23 · Score: 1

The problem with this is that you own the copyright on the picture you took; Not the one Google took.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Mister+Whirly · 2008-03-07 07:33 · Score: 1

Then I would just trademark the image of my house and nail them for trademark infringement.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Taelron · 2008-03-07 08:43 · Score: 1

Being a retired Marine it was a gaff to post the street view of the military bases... In fact I am surprised but pleased about how google handled the issue and agreed they shouldnt have mapped out the base they did. I was expecting them to either fight the decission or just remove it and not mention it. Kind of a stand up possition to say, yeah, we shouldnt have done that in hindsight...

Of course Google doesnt want to upset the military. While NASA operates Moffett, its still owned by the Navy. My roommate works there... Google wrestled a hell of a deal in getting to keep their personal jet on the grounds instead of at San Jose International Airport like everyone else. Upset the Military and they might see themselves looking for a new home for their corporate jet.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by russ1337 · 2008-03-07 09:16 · Score: 1

I'm not disagreeing that it's a bit tinfoil-hattish to protect the information, but there's no reason to provide it either. It serves no purpose for people who don't belong there in the first place and people who do belong there can get the information from the correct source.
Agree 100%. Also, to back up your last comment, they actually publish this newcomers guide (PDF) which has more than enough info to help a terrorist social engineer their way inside, as well as maps of buildings etc.... and its from the source itself!
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Radovan_Karadzic_01 · 2008-03-07 09:31 · Score: 1

its like ONE ENTRY VISAS, or kind of breaking net freedom!
Re:I'm trying to discover... by DavidShor · 2008-03-07 11:33 · Score: 1

"gathering foreign intelligence outside of the United States on non-US Persons has ALWAYS been allowable without any form of court oversight or warrants. As it should be."
This argument only makes sense in a strict legal sense. But just like the right to free speech, the freedom from unwarranted surveillance by the powerful is a fundamental right of man. If Americans should have this right, yet foreigners should not, then it becomes implicitly clear that foreigners are sub-human.
"You then seem to make the logical leap that any use of secrecy in the last 7 years has been to cover up corruption (and this has never happened at any other time in US history...?)."
It has, and that is the problem. Secrecy has been used as a cover for incompetence and power grabs for years. The fact that such a record is non-partisan, only bolsters the gp's argument.
"Some exclusively foreign traffic between foreign individuals can now travel through equipment located physically in the United States. Why should that be off limits?"
Your absolute refusal to admit that foreigners have a right to privacy disturbs me.
Suppose a politician is about to be elected in oil rich Nigeria, and he promises to nationalize American oil company assets in the country. The NSA then proceeds to monitor his communications, and discovers that he is homosexual. The US government then proceeds to leak the information to deeply conservative Nigeria, and a pro-American canidate is elected.
You want to give the government a blank check to do things like that? If the intelligence agencies think that the information is vital for our national security, they should be able get it passed a judge.
"Again, since warrants protect individuals, why shouldn't telecommunications operators be allowed to voluntary assist in the interception of such traffic via much, much easier means?"
Because this foreign person on the other end is a human being, with just as strong a right to privacy as the American.
"Foreign intelligence is a necessity, even for free nations. It always has been. Any denial of this is the denial of reality. "
That is rather debatable. You might be right, but considering the massive failures of intelligence over the last 50 years, the burden of proof is on you here.
"he Constitution only applies to US citizens or persons with a legal status within the United States. It does NOT apply to foreign persons outside of the US; any argument that it does flies in the face of the very notion of nation-states, borders, and international relationships."
Your argument flies in the face of the very notions of universal rights and freedom that our nation was founded on.
"This is precisely why the surveillance of such persons does not require a warrant. In the past, there was no earthly reason to conduct any such surveillance within the United States. Now there is."
Why do these people provide any more threat than people inside the United States? Why is it acceptable to force agents to get warrants when dealing with US citizens, if the threat to our security is so dire?
In the absence of the constitution, would you support requiring warrants for domestic surveillance?
Re:I'm trying to discover... by DavidShor · 2008-03-07 11:51 · Score: 1

"The arguments that the US "should" treat all persons on earth with the same protections of the Constitution is a very different discussion from what is or isn't legally allowable from a foreign intelligence perspective"
Yes, most people believe that a law allowing foreign surveillance would most likely be constitutional(Though the UN charter of human rights was ratified by the US, so that's a bit debatable)
But that defeats the purpose. If the US wanted to enslave everyone in Puerto Rico and force them to farm sugar all day, that most likely would also be constitutional(See the Insular cases of 1898).
The question is: Should congress pass a law requiring foreign surveillance to be illegal without a warrant? Hiding behind the constitution will not help you here, unless you want to support enslaving Puerto Rico.
So please, justify why you believe that invading the privacy of foreigners should not require a warrant.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by DavidShor · 2008-03-07 12:01 · Score: 1

"Being a retired Marine it was a gaff to post the street view of the military bases... "
Why exactly? You might be right, I'm not a military man, but I'm not sure why. The only organizations capable of launching attacks against domestic army bases have most likely infiltrated our military by now.
Meanwhile, I'd imagine that it might be useful for people who live on base. As you certainly know, bases sometimes contain non-military installations like stores or day care centers. I can imagine a soldier asking his wife to pick up the kids, and using the service to give her directions.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by DavidShor · 2008-03-07 12:05 · Score: 1

My understanding was that security by obscurity has been mostly discredited. The best security systems are transparently impermeable.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · 2008-03-07 12:20 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but I'm not hiding behind anything.

I fundamentally believe that, in the current and established international system of sovereign nation-states and governments, US Persons should be afforded more than non-US Persons with respect to the protections granted by US Constitution.

The reason I believe this is because I believe there should be a discernible benefit to living in a free and open society based on a rule of law and the diligent protection of its own citizenry.

Implicit in the protection of its citizenry is using the mechanics of defense and intelligence, including foreign intelligence collection unfettered by unnecessary restrictions -- for example, court oversight. I do not believe that foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons outside of the US should require a warrant. For those not following along, this type of collection has NEVER required a warrant. I believe collection should not be arbitrary, and that it should be justifiable by some measure, but oversight and proceduralization of this sort can and does happen via other channels than a court and a judge. In fact, it is necessary to ensure that US Persons -- either inside or outside of the United States -- are not inappropriately surveilled in such collection.

Your logical fallacy that I support enslaving Puerto Rico if I think that the current and historical situation that foreign intelligence collection on foreign persons outside of the US shouldn't require a warrant is correct unfortunately doesn't follow. It's not a case of whether a "law" allowing this is Constitutional. Such collection has always been intrinsically and explicitly allowed, because such persons do not have Constitutional protections with respect to activities such as surveillance. Additionally, in order to be on an even playing field with other nations -- if you believe that using one's capacity to maintain a defense and collect intelligence is valuable to the preservation of security of a nation -- foreign intelligence collection that is not burdened with the same requirements for protection of our own citizens is simply one of those realities.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by DavidShor · 2008-03-07 13:45 · Score: 1

"Implicit in the protection of its citizenry is using the mechanics of defense and intelligence, including foreign intelligence collection unfettered by unnecessary restrictions -- for example, court oversight. I do not believe that foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons outside of the US should require a warrant. For those not following along, this type of collection has NEVER required a warrant. I believe collection should not be arbitrary, and that it should be justifiable by some measure, but oversight and proceduralization of this sort can and does happen via other channels than a court and a judge. In fact, it is necessary to ensure that US Persons -- either inside or outside of the United States -- are not inappropriately surveilled in such collection."
Explain to me why court oversight is an "unnecessary restriction" for foreign intelligence gathering, but not for domestic intelligence gathering. After all, 7/21 showed that domestic terrorism is just as dangerous as foreign terrorism.
"It's not a case of whether a "law" allowing this is Constitutional. Such collection has always been intrinsically and explicitly allowed, because such persons do not have Constitutional protections with respect to activities such as surveillance."
Executive agencies and their role usualy need to be specified by congress to achieve funding. There are ways around this by using the President's executive authority, but those legal theories are very controversial.
"Such collection has always been intrinsically and explicitly allowed, because such persons do not have Constitutional protections with respect to activities such as surveillance."
No, such collection has been allowed because the Supreme Court has avoided the issue like the plague, possibly out of fear of judicial non-acquiescence.
"Additionally, in order to be on an even playing field with other nations -- if you believe that using one's capacity to maintain a defense and collect intelligence is valuable to the preservation of security of a nation -- foreign intelligence collection that is not burdened with the same requirements for protection of our own citizens is simply one of those realities."
You assume it is one of those realities, but you never state any evidence that it is so.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Taelron · 2008-03-07 16:12 · Score: 1

There are signs denoting areas of importance and sensative areas that are more readily apparent from ground view than from Ariel. Some security systems are difficult to detect or identify from a top down view, but a side view makes it easier to identify, so does that sign saying high voltage when at street level.

Military bases general facilities are usually very well laid out, planned, and identified. Main roads go from Base housing to the Post Exchange. Most barracks are arrayed off the main roads. But in the example you listed, the dependent wife is pretty much assured to find the place she is looking for easily. It becomes quickly apparent when you start driving in the wrong direction. In fact on most bases, the places where someone could get lost are normally off limits to civilians anyways.

While the threat of infiltrators into the military has always been there, in todays world of fanatics its still more likely a fanatic group would try to access the base via normal means and plot their attack... Giving them ground view access will lessen the number of reconaissance trips they have to make, lessing the chance of detection... But it also opens up views to areas that may be blacked out from overhead viewing.

Not only does the government force these services to censor many of their images, many buildings and facilities are designed to be non-descript from an arial view... But ground view these structures identification signs could be viewable...

We've seen from many of the bombing attacks that the terrorists do plan their attacks as thoroughly as we do our strikes. But are also lazy enough to take the easiest mark. No sense in giving them an additional source of intel...

Back in the 90's, early, a group of fanatics attempted to detonate a bomb at an air show featuring the Blue Angels. One of their bombs detonated in their car before they reached the base luckily sparing the civilians who would have been watching the show. In their car they found a map of the base created by the military to show people how to get to the viewing area and the bleachers. On the bleacher drawings they circled the spots, we suspect, they were going to place pipe bombs... A flier given out to civillians to help them get to the air show and enjoy it easier was subverted for an attack against U.S. military and civillians... If a flier could do that, think what street level views of the base could do...
Re:I'm trying to discover... by DavidShor · 2008-03-07 16:32 · Score: 1

Ok, that's pretty reasonable. Thanks.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by nolife · 2008-03-07 16:55 · Score: 1

Exactly my point. The person walking around aimlessly looking for a quick buck may be stopped by a locked door and move along to the next car. Someone that is scoping out and planning to specifically steal my car because they want it for for what ever reason is not going to stop the process because the door is locked. A terrorist PLANS to do a very specific thing and will work around the small obstacles. Take 9/11 for example. They went to flight school to learn to fly a specific plane, they rented an apartment and had countless meetings and traveled around getting everything ready for more than a year. Do you think they would have aborted the whole operation because they could not find an overhead view of the Pentagon on Google Earth?

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by humphrm · 2008-03-07 19:04 · Score: 1

I'm not convinced that there was a national security reason for Google to take down those images

You've got to be fucking kidding me. 360 degree panoramic photographs of military bases aren't a national security risk. And anyone who thinks differently is a right wing nutjob, I bet. Sheesh.

--
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Re:I'm trying to discover... by SnapShot · 2008-03-09 15:19 · Score: 1

There are "at least" 1500 bases in the U.S. ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071214023336AAao9RN ) and thousands more overseas supporting 1.4 million active and 1.4 million reserve troops. 1.4 million people is roughly the size of Philadelphia and you think that citizens should be forbidden from oversight over any of that? I guess you're looking forward to a N. Korean model where police darken the windows of trains that pass military bases and roads near those 1500 bases are closed "for national security" in case someone points their cell phone camera at a section of barbed wire fence?

My contention is that our country is stronger when things are NOT cloaked in secrecy by default. You're contention is that our country is stronger when things ARE cloaked in secrecy. I guess we'll have to agree to fucking disagree.

--
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Re:I'm trying to discover... by Bud+Dickman · 2008-03-10 01:57 · Score: 1

Awww, you were so close to it but you still missed the real point. Any bar you put up to block someone's progress is a good thing. If you have a locked door, you might stop 60% of the criminals trying to come in. If you have a locked door and a warning sign about a dog, you might stop 65% of the criminals. Locked door, warning sign, security cameras - 70%.
You see - security precautions are about preventing people from unauthorized behavior and putting up safeguards that, when violated, can be found out quickly to stop the behavior from continuing.
You're missing the fucking point.

they let them in... by chaos421 · 2008-03-07 02:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

well what did they expect? they let in a car with a deathstar-like thing on the roof. don't you think the gate guards would have asked what the heck that was? oh i don't know it could have been a camera, laser beam, bomb whatever... maybe they used the force. "move along."

google street view camera

Re:they let them in... by Arancaytar · 2008-03-07 02:50 · Score: 2, Funny

This is not the ominous-looking black surveillance van you are looking for.
Re:they let them in... by gnick · 2008-03-07 03:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Depending on the guard/base, getting on is not always difficult - I accidentally sneaked onto an Air Force base a few years ago (my second time driving onto a military base where I was unauthorized.) I pulled up to the guard station expecting to be turned away - I just wanted to ask the guard for directions to the badge office so that I could get a day-pass for my car. As expected, he asked to see my vehicle pass but, before I could respond, he noticed that I had flowers on my passenger seat (they were given to me earlier that day as congratulations on the birth of my first son.) He told me that if I was just delivering flowers not to worry about it. But, he did mention that I shouldn't spend too long on base before waving me on.

So that's it - You want to sneak onto base, arm yourself with flowers.

(As a side note, on my first breach - a missile range - I was armed with a rat. But that's another story...)

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:they let them in... by jregel · 2008-03-07 03:50 · Score: 1

All who want to hear the story about the rat and the missle range say "aye"...
Re:they let them in... by Eddi3 · 2008-03-07 03:53 · Score: 1

Aye.
Re:they let them in... by TheThiefMaster · 2008-03-07 04:03 · Score: 1

Oh definitely "Aye"!

I need some material for a d&d campaign, perhaps it'll give me inspiration :P
Re:they let them in... by FrameRotBlues · 2008-03-07 04:06 · Score: 1

This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original than "Aye!"
Re:they let them in... by gnick · 2008-03-07 04:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Sorry - I didn't post it because I don't find it as interesting as the flower incident and wasn't sure anyone would even care to hear about the flower incident.

Basically, I got lost. Really lost. (I've been known to get lost in elevators - Really. That can be embarrassing to explain.) I was driving from El Paso to Las Cruces with all of my stuff in my car because I was moving to go to school. That included my pet rat who would ride either in his cage on my passenger seat or on my shoulder. Anyway, I somehow wound up on the wrong side of the Organ mountains (I should have noticed that I'd lost the highway when I realized that there was no traffic and that somebody had installed tank-crossing signs along the road.) The road dead-ended at a guard station - I didn't realize that until the last minute because it was after midnight (dark) and I was tired. The guards (3) came out as I was scrambling to get my rat back in his cage. Before the guard that approached my car could ask WTF I was doing there, I started with "Where the hell am I?" With that, the other two guards chuckled and went back in the building.

The guard that remained was obviously more interested in my rat than he was me and asked a few questions as to why in the hell I would have a rat with me. (Wouldn't a better question be "Why are you driving up to a military guard post at 0030?) I explained that I was moving had gotten turned around. He warned me that the missile range was closed except to personnel working there and told me to drive straight through without deviating. I did.

That's it - End of story. It disturbed me a little that I was let in, but turning me around would have taken 1 hour+, so I won't complain.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:they let them in... by ubrgeek · 2008-03-07 04:30 · Score: 1

> laser beam

They were hidden in the frickin' sharks ... ;)

--
Bark less. Wag more.
Re:they let them in... by Skye16 · 2008-03-07 04:31 · Score: 1

Please, do tell.

Seriously. There's no way that story can be a bad one :D
Re:they let them in... by downix · 2008-03-07 04:46 · Score: 1

Why does Al Qaeda need nukes, when they can get what they want with box cutters and a boquet?

--
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Re:they let them in... by ivan256 · 2008-03-07 04:48 · Score: 1

It's a great story... But it seems to me that you were authorized. The guard gave you permission, after all.
Re:they let them in... by gnick · 2008-03-07 05:17 · Score: 1

But it seems to me that you were authorized. Fair enough. Maybe I should have said "improperly authorized" rather than "unauthorized".

In both cases, guards overstepped their authority by waving me on. The guards (for good reason) are not in charge of setting the security policies, just enforcing them. Now, is a guard exercising his own personal judgment and bending the rules a little to cut a break for someone that they decide isn't a threat necessarily a dangerous security breach? Probably not. But, in any case, the potential consequences are obvious and allowing folks in a national security environment to exceed their authority is a terrible precedent to allow.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:they let them in... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 06:28 · Score: 0

He received authorization, but improper authorization isn't proper authorization, ergo he was unauthorized. If he were to hang around on base, they could still get him for tresspassing if he obviously should have known better. Not that they'd try to make a case out of it, especially if he did nothing else wrong, but it's a possibility.

Yeah, it's twisty logic, but they really do make those distinctions. The guard that let him in was probably doing latrine duty for a week after that (well, it's a cute thought, but in reality they hire civilian janitors for that).
Re:they let them in... by GHynson · 2008-03-07 07:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

I got into White Sands, with an jar and a UN flag.

He's my story

One night I was with some buddies and we got to talking about Oppenhiemer and WWII and the bomb.
We all thought it would be kewl to go to the Trinity site where they detonated the first A-Bomb, and
after doing research on the site, we came to the conclusion that it would be pointless to go visit since it's been closed off to the public for "Safty Reasons".
Well anyway I ended up going there alone since everyone else was to chicken-shit to go, and the fact that it was in New Mexico (We lived in Austin, TX at the time going to UT.)
I got to White Sands Missle Range the next day and pulled up to the front gate,.which by the way did'nt look to secured. (I guess being out in the middle of the desert, you don't get to many vistors).
Well, to my surprise, the guards just flagged me through with out even making me stop.
After driving 20 miles or so I came to another post, this time I stopped and asked the guard where gound-zero was. He just told me to keep driving and "keep the posts to your right", and so I moved on.
(I realized what they mean by the posts sticking up out the ground now, because the sand covers the road and you'll get lost with out them). Anyway, about 90-100 miles in, I ran into what looked like the last remaining post which was heavly guarded by gun emplacements and armored vechicles.
Well, the guy in charge did'nt take to well me being there, and I'd say he kinda had a Nazi complex or something.
I got kinda scared so I made up some story on the fly about doing radiation experiments with the sand and I was there to collect a sample. I showed him the jar and I guess he bought the story.
After about an hour of being "detained" he said I can go get the sample but I'd have to go in one of their vechicles and with an armed escort.
When I got back from collecting the samples, they told me the guards at the first station thought I was with the UN since my Mini-Van was white and I had a UN flag waving on my antenna.
The second post thought I was a student with UT there on behalf of the UN and assumed I was legit since I made it through the first post. And I guess since I was a long way from home, the third post just let me finish my quest after they concluded I was no threat.
Well, I still got the sealed jar of sand in my curio display, and my my friends still can't believe I did it. I just wish I owned a camera at the time so I'd have pics to show everyone.
Re:they let them in... by gnick · 2008-03-07 07:41 · Score: 1

Some parts of White Sands are tightly controlled, others not so much (per wikipedia, it's 3200 square miles.) The Trinity Site is only open to the public 2 days a year (the first Saturdays of April and October). And they frown on people taking home souvenirs.

BTW - Leave the sand in the jar. It's almost certainly safe, just don't accidentally ingest any.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.

really? by verbalcontract · 2008-03-07 02:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

Google Street View: Hey, we want to update Google Maps so ordinary citizens can more easily find their way around cities. Can we go into your military base with this car mounted with cameras in every direction? Seeing as so many ordinary citizens are going to and from the Starbucks next to Colonel Hapablap's quarters. Even though it's against Google policy to do this in military bases.

Military Base: I see no problem with that.

Seriously, how did this happen in the first place? Doesn't the military have security?

Re:really? by OrochimaruVoldemort · 2008-03-07 02:46 · Score: 1

obviously it is weaker than pre 9/11 to allow google in at first.

--
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
Re:really? by qoncept · 2008-03-07 02:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You've obviously never worked in any supervisory position or for a large organization.

Picture this. You're a gate guard at on a military base. Your instructions are to allow people in with the proper credentials, deny those without, salute officers and be on the lookout for questionable activity. You do this 10-12 hours a day and get absolutely no respect. You see an odd looking contraption in a car that, through the mind-numbing tedium of your job, you may point out to the guy you're working with, but probably aren't going to do any more. Of course, you're supposed to say something, but at this point, you don't give a shit.

Now you're the colonel in charge of security on your base. You never know this happened. You continually tell people they are supposed to report or investigate this kind of thing, but they don't listen to you because their job is 100% useless 99.9% of the time, and identifying the remaining .1% of the time is trivial.

--
Whale
Re:really? by shawn(at)fsu · 2008-03-07 03:01 · Score: 1

I wonder if it was a verbal or written approval. Either way someone isn't going to fair well at the promotion review board.

--
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Re:really? by kellyb9 · 2008-03-07 03:20 · Score: 1

Seriously, how did this happen in the first place? Doesn't the military have security? Apparently not, but the Pentagon is pretty dam'n efficient in catching this. Wow did I just say that????
Re:really? by smooth+wombat · 2008-03-07 03:42 · Score: 1

Either way someone isn't going to fair well at the promotion review board.

You're kidding, right? Look at other types of outright incompetence or mismanagement, not only in the military, but in the private sector. Time and again, screwing up is rewarded with golden parachutes and promotions. Here are just a few examples:
Carly Fiorina, former head of Hewlett Packard. Drove the company into the ground with its purchase of Compaq. Mismanagement led to severe decline in HP quality. Left HP with a $21 million severance package and an additional $21 million in HP stock options.
Mike Brown, former had of FEMA during the Katrina hurricane. Publicly told he was doing a good job by George Bush. After his resignation, received a $148K a year salary to serve as a consultant on a review of the response to Hurricane Katrina.
Paul Bremer, former head of the Iraq reconstruction efforst after the invasion and occupation. Unable to account for billions of dollars in aid and money. Rewarded with Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts.
George Tenet, former head of the CIA. Stated the case for invading and occupying Iraq was 'a slam dunk'. Sat behind then Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations as Powell listed 'facts' which supported the invasion. Rewarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts.
Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide Financail CEO. Used questionable trading practices to cash in on $138 million in stock options before Countrywide's stock plummeted and the company went into bankruptcy proceedings. Countrywide has since laid off thousands of workers but Mozilo still runs the company.
Charles Prince, former head of Citigroup. Citigroup has written down billions in bad loans and derivatives and laid of thousands of workers. Prince, who retired in November 2007, received a retirement package estimated at $40 billion (yes, with a 'b').
In the current case, I can guess what will happen. The guy at the front gets the shaft but the colonel who found out about it and then issued an order to prevent future occurences, will be promoted to a one-star general for his quick work and decisive action.
Trust me, more and more it seems that incompetence is rewarded while qualified people are overlooked or ignored. No, I'm not bitter. What would make you think that?

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:really? by sm62704 · 2008-03-07 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Doesn't the military have security?

They did in the early 1970s when I was in the Air Force. My normal job at Dover was towing Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE; compressors, generators, air conditioners, etc) around the flight line. Note that Dover was a MAC base, it's where the dead soldiers were flown from Vietnam to. I didn't know that until long after I was discharged and had no idea that those alumanum boxes were full of corpses.

I was once volunteered to do a "security detal". The SPs (Same as MPs only the Air Force has to be different) drove me to the flight line and traded me an empty cardboard box for my security badge. My job was to put the box inside an aircraft, not wearing the badge.

That was actually fun!

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Re:really? by mitgib · 2008-03-07 03:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

but they don't listen to you because their job is 100% useless 99.9% of the time, and identifying the remaining .1% of the time is trivial. This is so dead on from my experience being in the Air Force back on the early 80's at least. Reminds me of the time we jacked the security guys at gunpoint when they crossed our barrier on the flight line with live weapons on the aircraft. You need to remember that at least what I saw in the Air Force, those that washed out of their chosen career due to not being able to complete the training became cops.

--
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 06:03 · Score: 0

Aren't you just the angriest little freedom hater I ever did see. Don't worry though, Americans aren't ready to elect a nigger or a cunt, so we'll have at least 4 more years of this shit.

Google Haters by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 02:45 · Score: 1, Funny

This obviously makes Google evil.. "Don't be evil!" "Don't be evil!" "Don't be evil!"

Re:Google Haters by Goffee71 · 2008-03-07 02:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Google isn't that evil, for a start; All your base photography are not belong to us

--
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
Re:Google Haters by Radovan_Karadzic_01 · 2008-03-07 09:39 · Score: 1

Google have public information and can connect ideas things etc. Photography are only imaginations in .*JPEG or .*BMP formats, but pentagon is .*demon

That's nothing! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 02:47 · Score: 0

In Morocco, Google Earth itself is blocked.

As there there has been no judiciary decisions leading to sites blocking, one can only speculate about the real reason; some patterns emerge though, it seems that the blocked sites are often related to the Polisario movement claiming independence of Western Sahara, Islamist fundamentalists, as well as sites carrying non official or subversive information about the king Mohammed VI like satellite images or locations of his palaces as in Google earth and Google maps or parodic videos as in Youtube. The Blocking of Google earth and Google maps may also be dictated by the desire to block information leading to secret locations like secret prisons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Morocco/

Re:That's nothing! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 05:56 · Score: 0

In Morocco, Google Earth itself is blocked. That's nothing!

IN SOVIET PAKISTAN, government blocks YOU!

Fort Sam Houston, in Texas by djmurdoch · 2008-03-07 02:48 · Score: 5, Informative

(which was not identified in press reports) The BBC report identifies the base as Fort Sam Houston, in Texas.

Re:Fort Sam Houston, in Texas by Novae+D'Arx · 2008-03-07 03:07 · Score: 5, Informative

Meh. I work a lot at Fort Sam - actually, at the hospital on base. The thing is about the place that it's a much more "open" base than pretty much any other one in the Army. It's a post dedicated almost entirely to training or medical support, and therefore can be much more laid-back than one with a buttload of ordinance and military "secrets" lying around. Also, last time I checked, they use semi-incompetent private security instead of armed military guards like almost every other Army post. I am absolutely unsurprised that there was a mistake like this made. Anyway, that point being made, these guys are too relaxed. The hospital is "open" as long as you can show a valid drivers' license at the gate. The rest of the base is fenced off from there, but the same guards control the gates, and get used to waving anybody through that looks like they think they should be there - lots of drug reps, for example, have to do some of their contracting or product-related teaching on the main post, and it becomes a logistical mess to give them special access IDs and the like. There's a lot of mix-ups related to things like this, so surprise surprise, somebody slipped through who wasn't supposed to be there. It's not some goofy general's fault, really, it's just the unique challenge presented by a post like this one where it's Army, but doesn't have the same mentality as most of the rest of the Army.
Re:Fort Sam Houston, in Texas by Stray7Xi · 2008-03-07 04:04 · Score: 1

Nearly every base is private security now.
Re:Fort Sam Houston, in Texas by paitre · 2008-03-07 04:17 · Score: 1

As soon as I read the blurb I kinda figured it was Ft Sam.

They just uploaded, recently, San Antonio street-level pics (like, over the last couple weeks), so it makes sense, just due to timing.

And while Sam might be open, it's still generally not kosher to be taking pictures of everything.
Re:Fort Sam Houston, in Texas by Otter+Popinski · 2008-03-07 04:26 · Score: 1

A lot of Army bases have on-site housing for soldiers and their families. Those guards are used to passing huge numbers of civilians through the gates day and night. Just getting through the gate doesn't mean you suddenly have access to nukes or anything. You have access to a middle class subdivision with a department store and a grocery store, and all the daddies work for the same "company." Sort of like the Globex Corporation. It's not as simple as "NO CAMO -- ACCESS DENIED." It's important to understand that -- as you point out -- access to one part of the base doesn't mean access to the entire base.
Re:Fort Sam Houston, in Texas by PPH · 2008-03-07 06:09 · Score: 1

It figures. The Pentagon is afraid that Mexico might be making plans to take Texas back.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Hollywood politics by Arreez · 2008-03-07 02:51 · Score: 2, Informative

This is a case of a request from a big named company making a base commanders eyes like a child to candy. Every commander wants to leave a mark on the base he resides. This was an opportunity for this bases commander to be known as the great commander that has a great relationship with google. He can now stretch this at dinner parties and play the "Oh your son is into computers??? I know someone at google...maybe I can make a call for you". US military bases are not as secure as they should be.

Re:Hollywood politics by amiga3D · 2008-03-07 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

US Military Bases are small towns. They have Burger Kings, Shopping areas, Pools, Golf Courses, Snack Bars and Grills, picnic areas, fishing lakes, child care centers, housing areas....etc. For most of the Base the security is fairly low level. They screen people coming in but it can be evaded if you are determined. Once inside they have areas that are high security. Don't try your luck with those. They've got 19 year olds with automatic weapons that have been brainwashed to the max and are very serious about security. I used to work on perimeter security equipment....those cops are scary. More than one person I know has found themselves in the wrong area....face down on concrete with a locked and loaded M16 to the back of the head. It's not any fun.
Re:Hollywood politics by M-RES · 2008-03-07 03:12 · Score: 1

US military bases are not as secure as they should be

Apart from US military bases housed in UK military bases - let's not forget how hardcore their security was at Greenham Common - a bunch of middle-aged women CND campaigners climbing over the fence often being treated as a serious security breach.

heh... they should just have driven up to the front gates with a big camera on the roof of the car and they'd have got right up to the nukes! ;)
Re:Hollywood politics by Arreez · 2008-03-07 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

I spent 4 years active duty and you are right about the amenities on the base. However, those 19 year olds with automatic weapons are not brainwashed by any means. Most of them dont want to be on duty and dont want to be there. They are strict about certain areas such as flight lines....if you step over the yellow line then you are on your face. Don't be fooled by speculation based on what the military is advertised to be.....its not.
Re:Hollywood politics by Novae+D'Arx · 2008-03-07 03:14 · Score: 1

Heh, yeah. Get lost on Fort Carson in Colorado and just that kind of thing can happen. They are VERY unforgiving of people getting too close to the Aerospace Command centers up on/in Cheyenne Mountain. Almost everyone on base there has a story about something like that - my favorite one is where a guy pulling security near the top of the mountain called out for pizza and the delivery guy didn't have the little "Domino's" plastic identifier thingy on his car. So, the first guard to see him driving up put a couple of rounds through his engine block since he didn't immediately stop where he was supposed to. Then, according to legend, the poor pizza delivery dude got yanked out of the car, face-slammed into the ground, and hauled off to some detention area for half the day until his story got cleared. They probably didn't even tip him.
Re:Hollywood politics by kabocox · 2008-03-07 05:31 · Score: 1

US Military Bases are small towns. They have Burger Kings, Shopping areas, Pools, Golf Courses, Snack Bars and Grills, picnic areas, fishing lakes, child care centers, housing areas....etc. For most of the Base the security is fairly low level. They screen people coming in but it can be evaded if you are determined. Once inside they have areas that are high security. Don't try your luck with those. They've got 19 year olds with automatic weapons that have been brainwashed to the max and are very serious about security. I used to work on perimeter security equipment....those cops are scary. More than one person I know has found themselves in the wrong area....face down on concrete with a locked and loaded M16 to the back of the head. It's not any fun.

Um, that's actually a good thing... Most of us would consider our selfs somewhat supportive of our country. If we were told to guard X and only let Y through, we'd do our damn best to try to let only Y through and well if it takes a loaded gun to the head to stop Not Y, then that's what we'd do. I actually support the military for not wanting all the "public" open stuff mapped on goggle. The answer is fairly simple, you'd have to just filter for not public area on the military base to find something that the military considers important enough to classify as secure and guard. That would be an area you'd additional intel on and target some missions on until you find out what's in there, and why its classified in that manner. From other slashdot comments it sounds like that military base had sloppy security and really didn't have anything much worth securing. Well, so freaking what. You just IDed that base as not that important or only medically important. That means foreign intel folks now know really secret stuff isn't going on there...

Of course, if the base security is that sloppy there, I'd really hope that we aren't doing any thing worth keeping secret there.
Re:Hollywood politics by c6gunner · 2008-03-07 09:11 · Score: 1

Heh, yeah. Get lost on Fort Carson in Colorado and just that kind of thing can happen. They are VERY unforgiving of people getting too close to the Aerospace Command centers up on/in Cheyenne Mountain. Almost everyone on base there has a story about something like that
Yeah, the only thing is, most of those stories are exactly that - stories. Military personnel LOVE to exaggerate their tales in order to make them seem more exciting, and civilians who have a tense encounter with the military tend to blow it out of all proportion. That Domino's story sounds typical - probably a small mixup that was resolved in a mundane manner, which, in the process of re-telling evolved from "Shit I had a rifle pointed at me for at least 20 seconds!" to "Holy crap, they blew away my car and dragged me off to Gitmo!".

ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by JeanBaptiste · 2008-03-07 02:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Most anything on a military base belongs to the military. Most of the buildings, most of the vehicles, most of the people - GI stands for Government Issue... Therefore in this case it is not 'censorship' in the least.

Re:ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by kimvette · 2008-03-07 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

. . . and here in America, the military, just like the rest of the government, belongs to the people. In theory, at least. In practice I understand it's quite different, but it shouldn't be. All aspects of government ought to be 100% accountable to the people.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by JeanBaptiste · 2008-03-07 03:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a little different when you're _in_ the military though. you are no longer a private citizen. they can order you to go take that hill, they can order you to go halfway around the world, they can order you to STFU.
Re:ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by M-RES · 2008-03-07 03:18 · Score: 1

Hmmm... so by bouncing off military property, the photons that make it into a lens and onto a CCD belong to the military also? Just interested as the 'images' are in fact only a representation of reality!!! Could this lead to a whole new semantic argument about property rights? hehe
Re:ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by Compholio · 2008-03-07 03:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a little different when you're _in_ the military though. you are no longer a private citizen. they can order you to go take that hill, they can order you to go halfway around the world, they can order you to STFU.
That doesn't change that private citizens in this country still have the right to know the things that their government (and by extension their military) are up to.
Re:ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by JeanBaptiste · 2008-03-07 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Doubt it. It's never been that way before, why would that change all of the sudden now? There's probably things from WW2 that are still classified. And not like it's the military - do you think you can waltz into an IRS office and demand to know everything they are doing? Of course not, you cannot view other people's tax information! Just as you wouldn't be allowed to attend a high level meeting between Generals... Some information is private, and if you think about it, often it's for good reason.
Re:ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 03:58 · Score: 0

Some information is private, and if you think about it, often it's for good reason

Funny, people don't seem to think street level views of houses should be private, why should the general sunbathing nude in his yard get any special treatment over me sunbathing nude in my yard?
Re:ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by JeanBaptiste · 2008-03-07 04:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Because the general is in charge of a lot of important shit. You, not so much.

let me get this straight by pak9rabid · 2008-03-07 03:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

After billions are spent on homeland security, the general public inconvenienced to hell, some of our freedom taken away in the name of security..and something like this is allowed to happen? Well, I sure do feel safe.

Re:let me get this straight by M-RES · 2008-03-07 03:21 · Score: 1

You should do... Google are at least documenting how some of your hard earned tax dollars are being spent by DHS! ;)

Are citizens less equal? by Hao+Wu · 2008-03-07 03:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why can't I censor my address "for security reasons"?

I consider it a threat that anyone can scout my home for robbery (ie. the best approach and exit) without even driving by.

--
I suggest you read Slashdot

Re:Are citizens less equal? by kellyb9 · 2008-03-07 03:13 · Score: 1

I'm not ever really sure how to respond to this. I guess by "censor your address", you mean censor the blueprints for your home?? But I'm not sure. As far as I know, they aren't publicly available, but I could be wrong. Regardless, I doubt they are on the Internet. The truth is I can drive by your home in much the same way I can drive by a military base.... except they usually have big fucking fences.... put up a big fucking fence and I guess that might "censor your address"
Re:Are citizens less equal? by blueg3 · 2008-03-07 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anything they can see from a public street is not private. I suggest finding a house further from the street.
Re:Are citizens less equal? by Sciros · 2008-03-07 03:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, citizens government. That's the way it's been for, idk, thousands of years.

--
I like basketball!!1!
Re:Are citizens less equal? by Sciros · 2008-03-07 03:37 · Score: 1

Ok there was a "less than" sign there. I forgot that /. is dumb even if I post in "plain old text."

--
I like basketball!!1!
Re:Are citizens less equal? by saider · 2008-03-07 03:41 · Score: 1

Hidden houses are more likely to be robbed. The cover allows the robber more time to try to get in since he is not as worried about being spotted.

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Re:Are citizens less equal? by blueg3 · 2008-03-07 03:53 · Score: 1

Is your claim based on data, experience as a robber, or just based on a logical statement you invented?
Re:Are citizens less equal? by bkr1_2k · 2008-03-07 04:10 · Score: 1

Actually all home blueprints are a matter of public record. They're required to be, and many states do have them available online, though not all. You're required by nearly every state to have blueprints for any [authorized] editions and structural changes for your home, so they have to provide them (most home owners don't get the originals) to you, at a nominal fee, usually.

I'll say it again though, someone driving by your house isn't the same as them being able to "scope" you out from the internet. It certainly isn't likely that a true burglar (not just someone passing by and smashing a window for a quick buck) is going to do their research on google because it simply won't give them enough information about your habits, but why is this information necessary? Where does it help to do this for housing areas? Shopping centers, public places, and businesses I can understand the justification but there's no valid reason to put homes on google street view.

--
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Re:Are citizens less equal? by saider · 2008-03-07 04:12 · Score: 1

My brother-in-law is a policeman and had advised me to cut down some of the bushes around my house for that reason. Basically, you want to plant in a way that provides some privacy, but still allows the passerby to see someone outside the house. So avoid the "jungle house" look and go with bushes and shrubs that you can see through. They will provide enough cover to keep people from seeing into the house, but still allow someone outside the house (trying to pry a window open) to be seen.

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Re:Are citizens less equal? by mapkinase · 2008-03-07 04:17 · Score: 1

Because you are an orange, not an apple.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Are citizens less equal? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 05:29 · Score: 0

It's a pretty well known statistic - my father used to deal with these sorts of crime stats and hidden houses were significantly more likely to be burgled.

Having lived on a military base... by GottliebPins · 2008-03-07 03:08 · Score: 3, Funny

I lived on a military base for 4 years and was amazed that while I had to wait in line to enter the base showing proper ID (either look at my ID card or see the sticker on my car window), pizza and delivery trucks would drive on and off with no trouble. Any fool could drive a car onto the base full of explosives with a pizza sign on it and nobody would stop them. And the security itself was a joke too. During the day I used to drive on with my long hair, beard, and earring, and they would salute me as I drove past because my car had an officer sticker on it, no ID check. Only at night did they check ID's. And if you really wanted to get on base at night all you had to do was walk to one of the closed gates and climb over, or walk into the woods and find a tree that had fallen onto the fence or bloody walk down to the back bay where the fence ends at the water and walk around it. Hopefully security has improved since 9/11.

Re:Having lived on a military base... by mark_hill97 · 2008-03-07 03:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

I used to work for AAFES on MacDill AFB in Tampa, FL. While the things you said about deliveries and such used to be true after 9/11 it all changed. At our base there was a special gate JUST for deliveries, where the contents would be examined in depth. Coming onto the base you would be subjected to a high level of examination, mirrors under the car, examining everything. It was a nightmare, 4-5 hours just to get onto the base if you were driving (I lived near enough that i would walk into work). As for jumping the closed fences, forget about it, those things had barbed wire and not the single thin stuff it was the wrapped heavy duty stuff. Constant security patrols would be going up and down the edge of the base. I myself was so frequently detained for being suspicious (I walked, it was Florida, nobody walks in Florida!) that the guys back at the station knew me by name. Granted this was all immediately after 9/11 and up until mid '03 so my information may not be as relevant anymore.
Re:Having lived on a military base... by YrWrstNtmr · 2008-03-07 05:48 · Score: 1

pizza and delivery trucks would drive on and off with no trouble.

A lot of the pizza drivers are active duty or retired mil. They take the runs on base specifically to avoid any hassles.
I was one of those.
Re:Having lived on a military base... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 06:26 · Score: 0

"During the day I used to drive on with my long hair, beard, and earring, and they would salute me as I drove past because my car had an officer sticker on it..."
That's because they're not saluting you, they're saluting the sticker, as they are required to.

Just pushing their luck. by dtml-try+MyNick · 2008-03-07 03:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

From what I gather from the article is that the film crew just pulled up to a military base and asked if they could shoot some film/pictures in there.
It sounds to me that the guys that were filming just wanted a challenge, see how far they can get waving a "google-film-crew" badge. Or just try for giggles, who knows.

Anyway, it seems to me the military is the erroneous party involved here, if you just let a citizen drive up your base and let them film, something is definatly wrong with your security

--
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.

Re:Just pushing their luck. by sm62704 · 2008-03-07 03:46 · Score: 1

What I'd like to know is why Google wanted to shoot military bases but they haven't gotten around to doing St Louis yet?

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Re:Just pushing their luck. by Bryansix · 2008-03-07 05:02 · Score: 1

Right because every citizen who is let on base is stripped of their cell phone cameras right? The answer is no, they are not. Ya, they shouldn't be filming there but base security on a big open base like that isn't going to be able to stop every picture from coming out of there.
Re:Just pushing their luck. by dtml-try+MyNick · 2008-03-07 06:22 · Score: 1

Cellphone small but noticeable difference.

--
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.

Google Intelligence Service by GrayGhost144 · 2008-03-07 03:13 · Score: 3, Funny

In support of Google's latest new product, the images have been moved to googlespy. com

Oblig Google Map Video by pikine · 2008-03-07 03:13 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE&fmt=18

--
I once had a signature.

Google compromising mission statement by dsaint · 2008-03-07 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." http://www.google.com/corporate/

I guess they need to add an asterisk to that mission statement.

Re:Google compromising mission statement by dwye · 2008-03-07 09:55 · Score: 1

> > "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally acccessible and useful"
>
> I guess they need to add an asterisk to that mission statement.

It could be worse. If Google were a HAL9000, you'd be dead, now. Or at the very least, every network adapter and router would be unable to connect, and they wouldn't kill you until you tried to replace one.

Paranoia by Cinnaman · 2008-03-07 03:22 · Score: 1

What, does the Pentagon expect terrorists to invade a US military base if there are street-level pictures? (which I am unfamiliar with as Google is slow to provide any extras for areas outside of the USA.) Or are they worried about Google Earth people stealing stuff?

Re:omg facism by sm62704 · 2008-03-07 03:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm not goint to say what base or where it was, but in the early 1970s I was on a base with thousands of B52s loaded with nuclear warheads waiting for WWIII/Armageddon. There were several SR-71s and U2s as well.

Out of curiosity I looked at Google Maps, and although the bombers are gone, I saw SR71s and U2s still there.

But I wonder, are the planes I saw at Google Maps real, or were they fakes/decoys? Or were the Google photos themselves fake, with the B-5s photoshopped out? Hmmm, I should check Google Maps for Dover DE and look for C-5As and C-141s.

Yep, they're still there. Wonder what the AF did with all the old bombers? Send them to Iraq?

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by MozeeToby · 2008-03-07 03:32 · Score: 1

Because murder is far too easy as it is. Someone determined enough that doesn't care about dying will always take out a few people first.

Allowing them to scout the territory before they make thier attempt will make it all the easier for them to target either large numbers of poeple or important people.

Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, two guys with a crapload of fertilizer and a uHual. How exactly are the gaurds soposed to stop a truck that rams it's way through the gates, drives up to the commanders mess and blows itself up; all in about 15 seconds.

Flowers beat military force! by Rob+T+Firefly · 2008-03-07 03:33 · Score: 4, Funny

What do you know, the hippies had it right after all.

--
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned

Re:omg facism by Stranger4U · 2008-03-07 03:34 · Score: 2

A lot of them are being cut up in the Arizona and California deserts and sold for scrap.

View Larger Map

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by Quila · 2008-03-07 03:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Big installations like Fort Sill or Fort Bragg control access along the roads, but they also extend far into the wilderness where it's hard to completely control access. Go to Fort Irwin or White Sands Missile range, and it's impossible.

Common Sense by Johnny+Stans · 2008-03-07 03:40 · Score: 1

with the U.S. at war.. the pentagon is completely right on this one.. and at the same time should have never allowed them to take the pictures originally.

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by Yoozer · 2008-03-07 03:42 · Score: 1

I don't see any reason why these images shouldn't be available.

Never let an enemy know more than he has to. Feed him shit and keep him in the dark.

DaveSchroeder and I finally agree on something by spun · 2008-03-07 03:53 · Score: 1

There is simply no reason to have detailed street level photos of military bases online. It won't help citizens ferret out any wrongdoings on the government's part, and it may help someone plan an attack. Google should never have asked, and they did the right thing by removing them.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Maybe they should have started at a different base by rongage · 2008-03-07 03:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Perhaps it wasn't the best choice to start off at Area-51. That place doesn't exist after all....

--
Ron Gage - Westland, MI

could've been great opportunity for misinformation by Chrisq · 2008-03-07 03:58 · Score: 2, Funny

If they had planned this out they could have had low security installations with signs saying "nuclear arsenal this way". High security installations could have been made to look like training camps. Alternatively they could have laid traps, with signs saying "would the last one out of the missile store please turn off the light", then had a heavy armed presence at all times.

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by Entropius · 2008-03-07 04:00 · Score: 1

And why does the US military consider the vast bulk of the world to be its enemy?

Re:omg facism by networkBoy · 2008-03-07 04:02 · Score: 1

Mather or more likely Beale AFB (Mather had the B52 wing locked and loaded, but IIRC couldn't land the U2. Beale had all three.)
-nB (and AF private subcon Brat)

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

no by GregNorc · 2008-03-07 04:12 · Score: 1

Google should have asked for a court order. What if the next time it's just street view on a street with a recruiting office on it? Or the van happens to go by a protest in front of a US monument? Where is the line drawn? Maybe this specific request was reasonable. But what about future requests?

CYA by RealProgrammer · 2008-03-07 04:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

In a democracy, everything paid for by taxpayer dollars should be open

While I agree with that statement, it implies that in non-democracies things should be something other than open.

But your last paragraph is really bad logic. You say that every scandal in the last 7 years of exposure to incompetence, corruption, or illegality has been decried as giving aid and comfort, which is largely true. That's because exposure of bad things does give aid and comfort to our enemies. The argument for exposing them anyway is that it's worth the price. It is incorrect and self-deluding to claim that there is no price to be paid.

But it is not "obvious" that covering for the people who made the mistakes is the real desire for secrecy, since that lumps all three of your categories together. The real desire for secrecy is in fact to hide our inner workings from our foes. Hiding them from ourselves is just a bad side effect that secrecy proponents are willing to accept, while you are not. And it's not the case that all revelations are met with equal cries of disdain from the Right nor glee from the Left. Lumping them all together is useful for creation of a bogeyman, but it's not an accurate picture.

--
sigs, as if you care.

Re:CYA by Sheafification · 2008-03-07 04:41 · Score: 1

While I agree with that statement, it implies that in non-democracies things should be something other than open. But your last paragraph is really bad logic. You set yourself up for this one: Your first statement is really bad logic. It's the converse of his statement, which has absolutely no logical connection whatsoever to what he said.
Re:CYA by RealProgrammer · 2008-03-07 04:47 · Score: 1

Yes, I know. It was lazy use of the word "implies". I should have said "suggests" or something.

--
sigs, as if you care.

Re:omg facism by sm62704 · 2008-03-07 04:19 · Score: 1

That does make sense, since they have the Stealth bombers now. The B-52's design is over half a century old, after all.

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest

I guess by BigJClark · 2008-03-07 04:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm the only who thought about, why not change the pictures of the base, to be wholly incorrect, or swap them around. In this way, your average civilian Joe can enjoy zooming around the military base at home, and your average terrorist Bob cannot effectively plan an assault.

Just a thought..

--

Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?

I'd Like To See Them Try This by aquatone282 · 2008-03-07 04:25 · Score: 0, Troll

. . . at a Navy or Air Force base where nuclear weapons are stored.

The Google Map crew would quickly learn concrete and asphalt do not taste good at all.

--
What?

The 'M' word by Chief+Wongoller · 2008-03-07 04:29 · Score: 1

Just because a location is afforded the terms military and base does not, in itself, mean than that location has any secrets, which might compromise national security if disclosed. We are, perhaps, getting too hung up on words rather than facts here. It seems to me that those granting permission to Google were simply using their best judgment, based on their first hand understanding of the actual situation. We should also not assume that military bases are necessarily more of a target to terrorists, etc. than other locations. Indeed, the enemies of the free world are more likely to choose soft targets, such as, for example, the Madrid and London transportation systems and Bagdad markets. Censorship should only occur when it is absolutely necessary and can be shown to be justified, otherwise this incident could be the thin end of the wedge. First military bases are excluded from mapping, then government buildings, then, hey what about schools we must protect the kids eh? Maybe the only solution is to move underground (remember Logans run?)

The Most Important Question by Puls4r · 2008-03-07 04:39 · Score: 1

Why shouldn't they have asked? That's not illegal yet, is it?

Re:omg facism by c0ck_l0rge · 2008-03-07 04:41 · Score: 1

Um, but you did basically name the base by saying where it is (Dover, DE)...

--
nothin' sounds quite like an 808

Re:Fort Sam Houston by ishmalius · 2008-03-07 04:41 · Score: 1

I was going to say the same thing. It's practically a city park with a hospital on it.

Re:omg facism by dick+johnson · 2008-03-07 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Dover never had bombers based there. It is/was a Mac (military airlift command) base, not a SAC (strategic air command) base.

Dover AFB has always been C-5 focused. The C141s have been/are being put out to pasture, replaced by C17s.

--
- dj

Re:omg facism by Mister+Whirly · 2008-03-07 04:42 · Score: 1

I am fairly certain there is delay in the imaging, and that the images are not "live" by any means but merely older images. If I do a Google view of my house, it it from the middle of summer, and the 2 feet of snow is mysteriously absent. But on the other hand, if Google satellite imaging can pick up photos like that, anyone else can too. I know the military has lots of ways of not having things detected by satellites, so I'm sure if they really didn't want those planes to be seen, they wouldn't have been seen.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"

Interesting by jalet · 2008-03-07 04:49 · Score: 1

Interesting to see how many IT people are angry about these pictures being available on Google, while at the same time criticizing security by obscurity as being ineffective.

I'm not from the USA, but I'd be glad to be allowed to see what is in these "super secret bases" that I as a citizen paid for.

I don't care if "terrorists" see them either, because the security of these "super secret bases" shouldn't rely on people not knowing what's in there.

Do you really think that a small group of determined people with a map of the place could attack such a base on land without being defeated in minutes ? If people can go at will in and out of your military bases, as one poster reported, then of course you've got other problems to solve... As for an attack coming from the sky, provided your plane contains sufficient bombing capabilities, there's no need for a map or pictures : just bomb everything (ask the people at Hiroshima for an example).

--
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by Binestar · 2008-03-07 04:51 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZiIk5gN3eM

Yeah, would suck for the security guy though.

--
Do you Gentoo!?

Re:omg facism by toolie · 2008-03-07 04:57 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm not goint to say what base or where it was, but in the early 1970s I was on a base with thousands of B52s loaded with nuclear warheads waiting for WWIII/Armageddon. There were several SR-71s and U2s as well. There were a total of 744 B-52s produced. Far shot from 'thousands'. The only ones that were on the runways loaded were the alert line, far fewer than were stationed at any bases.

On top of that, SR-71s and B-52s were never stationed at the same bases. The only base the SR-71 ever operated out of that was non-CONUS was Kadena, Okinawa. I'm calling BS on your being on any base in the early 70s that had all three aircraft.

Although if you look up any operational base, you can clearly see the alert lines with the fully loaded aircraft. The ones I looked at had nothing chopped from them.

--
-- toolie

Re:omg facism by Stranger4U · 2008-03-07 05:02 · Score: 1

Some of them are still in operation, since there are relatively few stealth bombers and they're really expensive. But there aren't nearly as many active B-52s as there were during the Cold War.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2008-03-07 05:03 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by nguy · 2008-03-07 05:05 · Score: 1

Allowing them to scout the territory before they make thier attempt will make it all the easier for them to target either large numbers of poeple or important people.

So what? My street can be scouted by terrorists and there are no armed military guards stationed there to defend it. If it's good enough for my street, why shouldn't it be good enough for a US military installation?

Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, two guys with a crapload of fertilizer and a uHual. How exactly are the gaurds soposed to stop a truck that rams it's way through the gates, drives up to the commanders mess and blows itself up; all in about 15 seconds.

Exactly. You can't. And that's just life in a free society. There is no perfect safety. If you want perfect safety, you have to move to a totalitarian state.

The public has a compelling interest in knowing how its military operates. That means that we should be getting a lot of images and videos from military bases and battlefields (with a moderate time delay in the latter case). And given that military bases are just about the best defended installations in the nation, the additional risk from making this information available is negligible.

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by nguy · 2008-03-07 05:07 · Score: 1

Never let an enemy know more than he has to. Feed him shit and keep him in the dark.

However, the US military operates in a democracy, not a military dictatorship. The people have a right to know what the military is doing, how they are treating their recruits, how they behave in battle. And that necessitates disclosure, not secrecy.

Bravo.... by AmishElvis · 2008-03-07 05:17 · Score: 1

I hereby pronounce you SANE.

A triple negative with a half-twist! by ShinmaWa · 2008-03-07 05:56 · Score: 1

I don't disagree that there was likely no "national security" reason That is truly a spectacular bit of linguistic acrobatics. You have a future in politics, PR, or marketing.

--
The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.

No Problem by PPH · 2008-03-07 05:57 · Score: 1

Just provide us with a list of all Defense Department properties you'd like deleted from Google maps, along with their coordinates, and we'd be more than happy to comply.

Funny. The e-mail requesting clarification seems to have a .cn return address.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

God forbid... by yaugin · 2008-03-07 06:02 · Score: 0

that enemies wishing to do harm to the US would do so at a *military* base. It's much better to keep info about *military* targets to be sealed up, so that terrorists and other assorted bad guys will be forced to look at high-profile civilian structures instead. How is this *any* better than Saddam's use of "human shields", aside from the inconvenience of having a tank parked in your garage? At the end of the day the bombs are still pointed at your head. If anything, I would say the most logical and reasonable thing to do is put as much information as possible about these bases out into the public. Anyone who could use this information to really damage national security already knows that info anyway.

Do no evil? But kiss donkey butt by ctdownunder · 2008-03-07 06:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Google again publicly kisses up to the US industrial military complex. Of course privately and from the their news feed selection it is clear to me that they probably work or have worked with the US security services. Are they partly owned by the NSA or another agency? If I was running an acronym agency I would at least try. Especially since US laws allow for this very evil non democratic type of covert activity.

--
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by Yoozer · 2008-03-07 06:15 · Score: 1

And why does the US military consider the vast bulk of the world to be its enemy?

Because military folks are paranoid, often rightfully so. Surprise and deception are powerful weapons; just read Sun Tzu.

However, the US military operates in a democracy, not a military dictatorship.

However, Google Maps is global, not local.

The people have a right to know what the military is doing, how they are treating their recruits, how they behave in battle. And that necessitates disclosure, not secrecy.

Oh, I fully agree. Thing is, pictures on Google Maps aren't going to help the people with finding those particular things out.

Of course it's censorship by Sloppy · 2008-03-07 06:20 · Score: 1

It certainly is censorship, by any definition. It's just that it may be justifiable censorship, as you go on to explain that what the government is censoring, is information about "their stuff." Likewise, if a soldier writes a letter to his sweetie, and says, "We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar," the person who cuts that out of the letter is called a "censor."

Don't try to redefine the word; that just confuses things. It's ok to judge the act of censorship and say, "well, I guess that was ok."

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Base jokes?! by autophile · 2008-03-07 06:22 · Score: 1

Hey, where the hell am I? Where are all the "all your base" jokes? Isn't this Slashdot? I must've gotten turned around and gotten into BoingBoing or something.

--Rob

--
Towards the Singularity.

SGC foothold scenario? by msebast · 2008-03-07 06:37 · Score: 1

You left out a few details. Especially the part about the spot light reflecting off the pizza guy's glasses. The guard mistook this for the glowing eyes of a Goa'uld. When the SGC is under attack you shoot first and ask questions later. So they thought the pizza guy was a Goa'uld and locked him up. The NID was all set to take that Domino's guy off to area51 for study. Fortunately Carter got back from off-world before the NID could arrange transportation. Carter was able to verify that the pizza guy was not Goa'uld so they let him go.

More photo's of Military Bases by jriding · 2008-03-07 07:00 · Score: 1

Need to send that google car over to Area 51.... see what they "capture" there.

--
love the taste, hate the texture

Unless.... by skatedog · 2008-03-07 07:37 · Score: 1

they are street-level images of.....THE ENEMY...

--
"skate the web"

Re:omg facism by sm62704 · 2008-03-07 07:38 · Score: 1

No, Dover was (is?) a MAC (Military Airlift Command) base. The bombers were stationed on SAC (Strategic Air Command) bases. They did away with the SAC when the cold war ended.

I was at Utapao, Thailand, too. Utapao was a SAC base as well. I can't even find that one on Google Maps; they may have changed its name. It was a Thai navy base that we rented part of to bomb Vietnam from. I saw my first U2 at Utapao.

It's not far from Fuckit Island (spelled "Phuket" on the maps, the Thais have a different alphabet than us but it's pronounced "fuck it". Fuck It Island was hit by that Christmas tsunami a couple of years ago.

I saw technology in the USAF in the early seventies that's still classified today. Food for thought.

From the two linked diaries: The bhuddist priests do things that make Kwai Chaing Cane look like a clumsy dork is from the first link, I walked around the wall, and "click-click"- I was staring into the barrel of a shiny chrome .45 calibre automatic pistol. "Ow alai?" the gun's owner demanded, or "what do you want" in English is in the second.

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest

Re:omg facism by sm62704 · 2008-03-07 07:45 · Score: 1

You are correct, Dover was (is?) a MAC base. It was NOT the base with the B-52s. I'm not going to name that base.

This was between 1971 and 1975, Dover had 141s then. The C-5s were brand spanking new at the time.

I mentioned a C-5 simulator in some detail in a K5 story I wrote a few years ago. It was about the coolest thing I'd seen in my life, at least at the time it was.

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest

Re:omg facism by sm62704 · 2008-03-07 07:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

You can believe what you want, but I saw more SR-71s parked together than what the media reported having been built. It must have been the same way with the bombers.

Wouldn't have been very smart of them to be truthful about how many spy planes and bomers they'd built.

I'm not sure if the U2s were natively stationed there, but I beleive they were as they were there quite a lot.

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by nguy · 2008-03-07 07:54 · Score: 1

Surprise and deception are powerful weapons; just read Sun Tzu.

What do photographs of US military bases in the US have to do with "surprise and deception" on the battlefield?

Oh, I fully agree. Thing is, pictures on Google Maps aren't going to help the people with finding those particular things out.

Google Maps are about the most carefully scrutinized and screened photographs available. If Google isn't permitted to publish street view, then those other things are not going to happen either.

Because military folks are paranoid, often rightfully so.

We need to change that. Paranoia has no place in our military.

sauce plz by dsnet2 · 2008-03-07 09:05 · Score: 1

thnx

Re:omg facism by Anonymous Coward · 2008-03-07 10:32 · Score: 0

There were 32 SR-71s built, but there were also 3 YF-12 and 18 A-12s built, and there was little difference between the three classes. Assuming you're not full of shit, that means there could have been 53 SR-71-like planes in one spot. There's no way in hell you ever saw "Thousands" of B-52s in one spot. They're just too damn big to have that many in one spot. Hell, hundreds would be a MASSIVE air base...

Re:omg facism by Oktober+Sunset · 2008-03-07 10:36 · Score: 1

B-52s are superior in a few ways, they can fly very long distances without refuelling and they can carry loads of bombs, crap loads.

--
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by Yoozer · 2008-03-07 13:46 · Score: 1

What do photographs of US military bases in the US have to do with "surprise and deception" on the battlefield?

Because with terrorism, the entire planet is a battlefield, not a designated area. Yeah, I know, this sounds stupid, obvious and paranoid :). There's no heavy machinery to move, there's no clearly defined areas to be covered or conquered. Are you perhaps familiar with training bases that have 1:1 models of certain towns or part of a city? Having a completely randomized layout each time you'd look would be nice, though.

If Google isn't permitted to publish street view, then those other things are not going to happen either.

Point taken, but those are snapshots that don't get updated in long timespans, right? Actual planned vigilance has more effect than occasional, randomized looks.

Oldest classified document by Derling+Whirvish · 2008-03-07 15:57 · Score: 1

There's probably things from WW2 that are still classified. A Congressman a few years back asked the National Archives to find the oldest classified document in their possession. He wanted to see how the declassification efforts were going. It was a document from World War One. It still remains classified. Both governments (the US and UK) reviewed it and determined that there were still legitimate reasons for it to remain classified. So it is.

Re:omg facism by wyohman · 2008-03-07 16:22 · Score: 1

I find it hard to believe "thousands" of B-52s were ever in one place at one time. Dozens, yes. Hundreds, probably not. Thousands, hardly.

Cheers.

No protection for those outside US ... by Schtroumpf42 · 2008-03-07 19:36 · Score: 0

(US)-constitutional protection dont apply to foreigners .. sure, that's fine with me ... at least for as long as those foreigners dont enter the US ...
Why ? simply put, USA is a country of immigrants ... whose only right(?) to stay there derives from the slaughtering of this country's native inhabitants (remember Native American's fate .. or that of the Slaves packed in sea-faring bricks)...

Apart from this little glitch, there are plenty of US's overstepping their rights in pretty much every other country in the world :

USA has coaxed most of the world's countries into signing a treaty (sorry, dont remember the name, if it has one), barring them from bringing US citizens to Den Haag Tribunal, for whatever they have done (remember CIA's actions in the 1950-1980, and both bushes's actions afterwards ...)
USA is consistently using its economic power to stomp on the so-called poor countries around the world (look at South America's economic history ...)
When USA fancies something, USA takes ... quite frequently at the expense of the original owner ... look at Iraq's Oil for one of the most recent exemple ... and most of the natural resources of the world, for the biggest one ...
USA's pathological need to be seen as the good guy : so many Military operations (that, for a reminder, results firstly in thousands of exploded women, children, and more generally, innocent bystanders) have a name lexically close to free/freedom ...
USA's frequent supporting of terrorism and dictatorships : look at the history of the following countries, and especially the role played by the CIA, military aid, or simply US military in those countries : Iran (Shah, 1953-1978) - Indonesia (Suharto, 1965) - Chile (Pinochet, 1973) - Iraq (Saddam Hussein, 1963-1985) - Uzbekhistan (US Army, 1998-2005) ... and the longest commitment, Israel (Palestinians fate, 1950 to present)

There's much more, but I'll stop here, or I might be considered a terrorist... Whose current meaning is : someone who doesnt bless W's actions every morning ... presently includes France's last president, Jacques Chirac, and growing parts of at least both the Middle East and Southern America, who historically have every single reason to be mad at USA's meddling with their internal politics...
--
Disclaimer : Dear W (or his planned successor), I'm a lone individual, please act reasonably, and don't hurt the 60 million persons who happen to live in the same country as myself ... unlike what the USA consistently did throughout the world, roughly since the fall of the Sino-German empire ...

PS : The United States of America used to be a democracy ... at a time when your Founding Fathers didnt spin in their graves at all !!!

Re:the US military may not be doing its job by nguy · 2008-03-08 04:44 · Score: 1

Because with terrorism, the entire planet is a battlefield, not a designated area.

Terrorism has been around for as long as there has been government and it's never going to go away. It is also an insignificant cause of death. Even 9/11 was an insignificant blip in terms of total preventable deaths in the US in 2001, and the trillions of dollars spent in response to it have not made us any safer--quite to the contrary.

The 9/11 terrorists have been successful because of fear mongers who try to get us to abandon our civil liberties and institute totalitarian government.

I can just say it again: if our military bases require obscurity in order to be secure, our military isn't doing its job, either in defending themselves or defending the rest of the country.

Re:omg facism by sm62704 · 2008-03-10 02:29 · Score: 1

It was a massive air base, and I didn't count the B52s. There were rows upon rows of the things.

There were far fewer than 32 SR71s there.

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest

Re:omg facism by Jeruvy · 2008-03-10 04:12 · Score: 1

Um, Google doesn't own a satellite yet...they may have a lot of rights but I'm not speculating either way.

They do have some great software at mapping all the data the real imaging companies are collecting. This article is something completely different (tho related to) which is the act of 'photographing' a location so that you can move around the map using the photo. (FYI those copyrights at the bottom do mean something)

No kidding they removed this.

--
Jeruvy

Re:omg facism by Mister+Whirly · 2008-03-10 04:17 · Score: 1

They don't own a satellite (yet), but they do have ground crews taking pictures for the "street view" part of their mapping.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"

Slashdot Mirror

Google Pulls Map Images At Pentagon's Request

217 comments