Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debunking the Google Earth Censorship Myth

Posted by timothy on from the just-what-they-want-you-to-think dept.

waderoush writes "There's a persistent Web meme to the effect that Google obscures sensitive or top-secret locations in Google Maps and Google Earth at the insistence of national governments. A July IT Security article promoted on Digg, 'Blurred Out: 51 Things You Aren't Allowed to See on Google Maps,' revived this notion. But the article has been widely criticized, and I did some fact-checking this week on the six Boston-area locations mentioned in the IT Security list. As it turns out, not one of the allegedly blurred locations has degraded imagery in Google Maps, as my screen shots demonstrate. My post looks into the sources of the misleading IT Security piece, and of other mistaken rumors about Google Maps."

53 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. So what about the other 45 locations? by toby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nice work on Boston, champ.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:So what about the other 45 locations? by Chrismith · · Score: 5, Informative
      I only looked at the first few locations on the list, but several of them were obviously blurred or pixelated -- the Naval Observatory in DC is a perfect blurry circle amid high-res imagery, and the Air Force Base listed as #4 looks like someone inserted a mosaic art piece over the image.

      Did this guy really not look at these locations? Those were in the top five, and there are links to the Google Maps locations in question, for crying out loud.

    2. Re:So what about the other 45 locations? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did this guy really not look at these locations?

      Maybe google knows his IP address.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:So what about the other 45 locations? by museumpeace · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I work at one of those facilities and know damn well that LAST YEAR a coarse resample was laid over the campus where I work. Google has recently [last two or 3 weeks i think] updated the imagery for eastern massachusetts. I know because my new neighbors house suddenly appeared in google satellite view and it went from winter imagery to summer...which is a huge drop in information, btw because of tree canopy. The newer images do not blur the facility I work at but then neither did the old ones when they first came out. Just give 'em time.

      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    4. Re:So what about the other 45 locations? by inKubus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a well known fact that the imagery providers have to obscure certain things. Just because a few of the images mentioned in the story turned out to be unobscured later doesn't mean they weren't at the time of the writing. The images are updated quite regularly, and once Google's satalites start working it'll be even more freqent.

      Yes, it's censorship to obscure the imagery, but it's a tough balance to strike. Yes, information wants to be free. And as a taxpayer, it could be argued that you have a right to see whatever your government has been spending your money on. But people in other countries do not. Furthermore, the plans and everything for most of these buildings are located in the bottom of a filing cabinet in a dark basement room with a sign on the door that says "Beware of Leopard". That said, it sure is cool to look at government stuff, and the imagery being available makes it real easy.

      For me, it's fun to find black helicopers and such, but that's basically it. It's just fun to look at stuff. I like those 'eyeball' things over at cryptome.org also. The risk is pretty low that someone would be able to plan an operation or something with just the image data. So they take away the fun to hopefully mitigate a small amount of risk.

      On the flip side (again), there seems to be so many secrets these days. Too many, if you ask me. But, hopefully they know what they're doing.

      Soon people will be able to upload their own photos to the view, like in that Microsoft thing, but on a 3d globe like Google Earth. People taking photos from passenger airplanes and such. More private aerial photos and satellites with small resolution and lower latency. It will happen. Google is on the right track with GIS, I think it'll be the killer app of the 2010's. Google has the power to pull everything together, it might take a while but soon there will be a nice parallel universe inside their datacentres. Unfortunately in that world, it makes extreme paranoia as actionable as extreme information gathering.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    5. Re:So what about the other 45 locations? by spymagician · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Excellent points all. Further consideration: Regardless of what is produced by the application (Google Earth)there is no easy way to determine its legitimacy or accuracy. Just because an area isn't blurred doesn't mean what you're seeing is accurate. Oh, and I just checked the Chernobyl (Chornobyl) NPP, and the actual power plant and surrounding Zone of Alienation is still blurred.

    6. Re:So what about the other 45 locations? by pvera · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly.

      I like to check out through google maps places I used to be stationed at while in the US Army over a decade ago, and I can clearly see how most roofs are showed as white rectangles, and antenna pads are whited out so you can't see in which direction they point. This is on both training facilities and in active duty stations.

      In the case of a medevac heliport all you can see is whited out taxi areas and pads, while at the same level of detail in a civilian facility you can easily follow the lines painted on the surface.

      This has been going on for years, nothing new.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
    7. Re:So what about the other 45 locations? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you really not read the article?

      "As Google has acknowledged in the past, there are spots, such as the U.S. Naval Observatoryâ"home for another 116 days to Vice President Dick Cheneyâ"that have been deliberately blurred or pixelated by the companies that sell aerial imagery to Google. (See image at left. You can click on this image and all of the images in this article to see larger versions.)"

      So Google didn't censor it, the company selling them the images did, that's what the article says.

  2. Right on time, the NSA pays off /. to debunk this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who should I believe? You, or my lying eyes?

  3. Error establishing a database connection by BeBoxer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Error establishing a database connection

    They sure blurred him out fast.

  4. Digg? Inaccurate? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean an article that was inaccurate or just flat out wrong was massively promoted on DIGG? No, I simply can't believe it.

    Digg: It's like Slashdot if concussed monkeys took over.

    1. Re:Digg? Inaccurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean it's like Slashdot, if the concussed monkeys took up drinking.

    2. Re:Digg? Inaccurate? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean it's like Slashdot, if the concussed monkeys took up drinking.

      Hey! I resemble that remark.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Digg? Inaccurate? by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But with fewer dupes.

      I'd say the main difference is that a much higher percentage of digg posters are raving morons, while Slashdot has more refined trolls.

    4. Re:Digg? Inaccurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean it's like Slashdot, if the concussed monkeys took up drinking.

      Ook?

  5. Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by FlyByPC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out the Naval Observatory in Washington, DC. Definitely pixelated -- but the cars just outside the circle are quite visible.

    ...Not that Mr. Cheney is the secretive sort. Perish the thought!

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FWIW the Naval Observatory is blotted out in all satellite photos. It's my understanding that this is a "national security" requirement and (besides it being a no-fly zone) satellite and areal photography are required by federal law to obscure it. Since Google still buys most of these pictures from other people, I wouldn't blame Google for this one, per-say...

    2. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Per se.

    3. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe that is because the USNO contains primary frequency standards, so any attempt to take accurate photographs would result in a violation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

    4. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by hyperquantization · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suspect that most of these had been obscured at some point in the past, such as these natural gas tanks in Boston. IIRC, they were quite pixelated a mere 6 months ago, but are no longer due to change in policy or whatnot. I remember noticing just a few of these (around Boston, of course), so I can't speak much against the others. But with that in mind, I think it's pretty unfair to discredit the 'Blurred Out' article; it may be outdated, but it's not necessarily a myth.

    5. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FWIW the Naval Observatory is blotted out in all satellite photos. It's my understanding that this is a "national security" requirement and (besides it being a no-fly zone) satellite and areal photography are required by federal law to obscure it.

      That's like placing a sign on an aircraft.

      "No Hijacking"

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    6. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's like placing a sign on an aircraft.

      "No Hijacking"

      Well... i guarantee that the percentage of aircraft with "No Hijacking" signs on them that don't get highjacked would have a significant number of 9's in it, so it obviously works and works well, provided you measure the outcomes correctly.

    7. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by jalefkowit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Naval Observatory is the location of the residence of the Vice President of the United States.

      --

      Read my blog.

    8. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Funny

      Puts the expression "naval gazing" in an entirely new context.

  6. Rye Playland by lpaul55 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Playland, the amusement park in Rye, New York, also shows up as blurred compared to the surrounding suburbs:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.248722,4.43965&spn=0.3,0.3&t=k&q=52.248722,4.43965

    Cannot imagine why!

    --
    ... now back to the bit mines.
    1. Re:Rye Playland by lpaul55 · · Score: 3, Informative

      better link:
      http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rye+new+york&ie=UTF8&ll=40.965803,-73.673158&spn=0.013999,0.020449&t=h&z=16

      --
      ... now back to the bit mines.
    2. Re:Rye Playland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Abandoned amusement parks are usually prime real estate for evil geniuses, their evil projects, and their hordes of henchmen. It wouldn't surprise me that certain amusement parks are pixelated given the secrecy involved in taking over the planet.

    3. Re:Rye Playland by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Finally, we know the undisclosed location Cheney is always going to!

      I've always suspected it involved a handbasket.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Rye Playland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have a fairly loose definition of "Rye, New York".

    5. Re:Rye Playland by Kindgott · · Score: 2, Informative

      For some reason, the Kohl's Shopping Center in nearby Port Chester is also blurred a bit, though I can't fathom why.

      I've been thinking about starting a blog containing pictures of places that are obscured on Google Maps for no apparent reason.

      http://tinyurl.com/4ysydq is the shopping center's view.

      --
      If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
    6. Re:Rye Playland by fr175 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Playland, the amusement park in Rye, New York, also shows up as blurred compared to the surrounding suburbs: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.248722,4.43965&spn=0.3,0.3&t=k&q=52.248722,4.43965

      Cannot imagine why!

      I don't know why this was modded as +5 Informative - the link doesn't even go to Rye, NY. Unless Rye, NY is now in Europe...

      Zoom out at the location that is linked to and it is in Holland.

  7. Re:Fact Checking Failure by lysergic.acid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so you think Google spent twice the amount of money to use 2 separate satellite imaging services? or that they use two disparate censorship policies, so that if the government asks them to obfuscate the VP's residence they would only comply for one service but not the other?

    i don't know if the summary is correct or not, but logic would suggest that Google would use the same satellite images for both sets of aerial maps, and if they were going to blur out a location in one service it would be done to the other as well.

  8. The Truth of it all is.... by Neffirithion · · Score: 5, Funny

    Post removed for being in violation of Patriot Act

    1. Re:The Truth of it all is.... by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Funny

      <Parent removed due to violation of a National Security Letter>

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  9. Re:Outdated by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe it is still blanked by something more plausible?

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  10. But does Google Street View steer clear of Obama? by theodp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google Street View steers clear of Obama's neighborhood

  11. Re:Fact Checking Failure by maeka · · Score: 4, Informative

    All the higher-res images are airplane shots, not satellite. Why does this need constant reminding?

  12. hmmm by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it odd how the Perry nuclear power facility in Lake County, Ohio was sensitive enough to be blurred for the longest time but Davis-Besse and Fermi just up the coast of Lake Erie were not.

    --
    The game.
  13. Ramstein airbase is whited out by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I discovered today that Ramstein airbase in Germany (hugely important to US) is "whited out". At first I just thought it was a really big building, then I thought white concrete surfacing. Finally I realized that it was blacked out, but they tried to make it look like it wasn't. They even threw in a a few fake aircraft and shadows, but didn't quite make it past the uncanny valley. It's just a matter of time until they perfect the fabrication of imagery for those locations.

    See for yourself; that ain't real.

    --
    One simple rule for its versus it's
    1. Re:Ramstein airbase is whited out by NeilTheStupidHead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I think someone just used a magic wand type tool and then maxed out the saturation.

      --
      Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together
    2. Re:Ramstein airbase is whited out by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, here is another photo:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RamsteinAB.jpg

      Looks to me like there is a lot of pavement.

    3. Re:Ramstein airbase is whited out by Eil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but that sounds like conspiracy talk. To me, the white area looks like just a big newly-constructed concrete ramp. I've been seen and been to a lot of airports, so I know what a ramp looks like.

      If you look at the top and bottom, you see areas that are still under construction. Some taxiways and even portions of the runway are bright white. What possible reason reason could they have for "whiting out" the runway's threshold and blast pads? The overall white area doesn't look anything like a building and all the actual buildings are arranged around it, just like any other airport. If you scroll around a bit, you'll see other areas that are nearly white but plainly older because they have streaks of gray running through them.

      Back in the day, I understand that satellite photos used infrared to generate fairly visually-accurate monochrome images of the ground. On those, thick forests and bodies of water should show up black while roofs and roads would be a lot lighter. I would take a wild guess that the satellites which capture images these days use infrared to enhance the visible light photo and brand-new concrete reflects a whole bunch of the sun's infrared back at the camera. This oversaturates that area on the picture and makes objects on the concrete difficult to see. But that's just a theory. I'd appreciate hearing from someone who knows how it really works.

    4. Re:Ramstein airbase is whited out by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some of the newer bases, like the US CENTCOM complex in Qatar was designed to be low-observable from recce, electro-magnetic and optical. There are some good photos from back in '02 on globalsecurity's site under public eye.

  14. I think something's wrong with my browser... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    I tried reading the Google cache of your post, but it was blurry.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  15. I wonder... by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Has anyone checked to see if all the good pubs are blurry? Maybe with a touch of double-vision and a few pink elephants? Also, if blurry images are proof of national security concerns, the sheep in New Zealand must be Above Top Secret to produce some of the limitations there.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  16. Re:Fact Checking Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Correct. How would they get a high res shot where there is a no-fly zone? It is not censorship, it is avoiding being shot out of the sky by missiles.

  17. Dear Google, Please Obscure My Country's Top Secre by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    chemical weapons factory. I hope that the hidden area on the map doesn't drawn anyone's attention. And therein lies the problem with obscuring secret locations on maps. The mere act of obscuring it announces it.

  18. Propaganda piece of an article by jonfr · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article is BS. As anyone how bothers to see there are places on google earth that are blurred or cut out and replaced with green fields.

    Here are two examples.

    http://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&q=52.109911,4.326597&ie=UTF8&ll=52.109912,4.326596&spn=0.00456,0.009549&z=17&iwloc=addr
    http://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&q=53.2232,5.754861&ie=UTF8&ll=53.223199,5.754862&spn=0.01778,0.038195&z=15&iwloc=addr

  19. Re:Blurry, no; pixelated hell yes - Maps.Live link by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They are all taken from planes no matter what service you use.

  20. Re:Cite a source... by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're going to have to cite sources on the 'requirement' and 'federal law' claims. Many companies buy satellite imagery from Russian companies, so what exactly is this law and who is the burden on?

    I wonder how many russian satellites have good coverage of the United States. Geostationary satellites wouldn't have good coverage (at least for map-making of the United States, since they're following the equator and would view the United States at an angle). The russian satellites on the Molnya orbit wouldn't have very good coverage either (at least for anything Naval in the United States, scroll down to see their coverage map, besides they're very high and probably wouldn't get good detailed pictures)

    Now, I don't doubt that the russians have many low altitudes geosynchronous satellites that are designed especially to have good coverage of the United States, but I wouldn't be surprised if those satellites are mostly military spy satellites (of Russia, France, or wherever), and that due to the military purpose of those satellites, that their images don't get sold on the public open market yet.

    In any case, here is a newsletter from google talking about their sources for imagery.

    [...]

    Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes - even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.

    The next step is processing the imagery. We scan the film using scanners capable of over 1800 DPI (dots per inch) or 14 microns. Then we take the digital imagery through a series of stages such as color balancing and warping to produce the final mosaic for the entire area.

    We update the imagery as quickly as we can collect and process it, then add layers of information - things like country and state borders and the names of roads, schools, and parks -- to make it more useful. This information comes from multiple sources: commercial providers, local government agencies, public domain collections, private individuals, national and even international governments. Right now, Google Earth has hundreds of terabytes of geographic data, and it's growing larger every day. And that's not counting the extraordinary "open source" projects people have built to enhance it.

    Yes, some parts of the world are still blurry. But in the ten years since the idea for the project was planted, the momentum behind it has only grown exponentially.

    http://www.google.com/librariancenter/articles/0604_01.html

  21. Re:Cite a source... by zmollusc · · Score: 4, Funny

    russians have many low altitudes geosynchronous satellites

    Damn Reds and their lack of respect for physics!

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  22. Re:Must be new here. by JanneM · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...considering his uid is HALF that of yours...

    He's getting senile.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  23. Re:Cite a source... by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > I wonder how many russian satellites have good coverage of the United States.

    Since 1992 it has been possible to purchase Resurs and Kometa imagery of the US through the state company Soyuzkarta. This required the declassification of the military Kometa's cameras - a 10-metre resolution topo and a 2-metre resolution mapping camera.

    One of the first customers, and one which has been a reliable repeat customer, was the USAF. They used imagery of Washington to plan General Dolittle's cortege.