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.

23 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · · 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.

    1. Re:I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · · 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.

    2. Re:I'm trying to discover... by kellyb9 · · 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.

    3. Re:I'm trying to discover... by SnapShot · · 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.
    4. Re:I'm trying to discover... by bkr1_2k · · 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."
    5. Re:I'm trying to discover... by daveschroeder · · 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

  2. they let them in... by chaos421 · · 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

    1. Re:they let them in... by gnick · · 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.
    2. Re:they let them in... by gnick · · 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.
  3. really? by verbalcontract · · 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?

  4. 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.

  5. Re:Google Haters by Goffee71 · · 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?
  6. ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by JeanBaptiste · · 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.

    1. Re:ITS NOT CENSORSHIP by JeanBaptiste · · 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.

  7. let me get this straight by pak9rabid · · 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.

  8. Are citizens less equal? by Hao+Wu · · 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
    1. Re:Are citizens less equal? by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anything they can see from a public street is not private. I suggest finding a house further from the street.

  9. Re:Hollywood politics by amiga3D · · 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.

  10. Just pushing their luck. by dtml-try+MyNick · · 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.
  11. Re:Hollywood politics by Arreez · · 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.

  12. Flowers beat military force! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  13. CYA by RealProgrammer · · 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.