Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Pulls Map Images At Pentagon's Request

Posted by kdawson on from the limits-to-openness dept.

Stony Stevenson alerts us to a little mixup in which a Google Street View crew requested and was granted access to a US military base. Images from inside the base (which was not identified in press reports) showed up online, and the Pentagon requested that they be pulled. Google complied within 24 hours. The military has now issued a blanket order to deny such photography requests in the future; for its part Google says the filming crew should never have asked.

6 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Fort Sam Houston, in Texas by djmurdoch · · Score: 5, Informative

    (which was not identified in press reports) The BBC report identifies the base as Fort Sam Houston, in Texas.
    1. Re:Fort Sam Houston, in Texas by Novae+D'Arx · · 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.

  2. Hollywood politics by Arreez · · 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.

  3. Re:I'm trying to discover... by bkr1_2k · · 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."
  4. Re:I'm trying to discover... by PapaSmurph · · 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.

  5. Re:omg facism by toolie · · 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