Slashdot Mirror
Calif. Politican Thinks Blurred Online Maps Would Deter Terrorists
Hugh Pickens writes "California Assemblyman Joel Anderson plans to introduce a bill to force Google Earth and similar services to blur images of so-called 'soft targets' like schools, hospitals, churches and government buildings to protect them from terrorists. 'All I'm trying to do is stop terrorists,' said Anderson. 'I don't want California to be helping map out future targets for terrorists.' Concerns that detailed satellite imagery and photographs available on Web services could help terrorists plan attacks are not new, with reports that terrorists have used such imagery to carry out attacks in Iraq and Israel, and an Indian court is considering a ban on Google Earth following reports that its imagery played a part in the Mumbai terrorist attacks."
"Security expert Bruce Schneier recently wondered what other things legislators might consider banning to prevent terrorism: 'Bank robbers have long used cars and motorcycles as getaway vehicles, and horses before then. I haven't seen it talked about yet, but the Mumbai terrorists used boats as well. They also wore boots. They ate lunch at restaurants, drank bottled water and breathed the air,' wrote Schneier. 'Society survives all of this because the good uses of infrastructure far outweigh the bad uses, even though the good uses are — by and large — small and pedestrian and the bad uses are rare and spectacular.'"
Ban bottled water, that stuff's a killer!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
If we just blurred all maps, the terrorists couldn't even find their targets!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Politicians have called for a ban on cars since they are used for bank robberies. They have also called for a ban on cellphones since terrorists have been using cellphones for communications. More at 11.
Terr'st1: "Are you ready to hit the school and strike a blow against the evil US?"
Terr'st2: "Yes! We must stand up against the Great Satan!"
Terr'st1: "Good! Grab the map."
Terr'st2: "It's... it's blurred! This cannot be!"
Terr'st1: "Curses! We are foiled."
Terr'st2: "You outsmarted us this time Great Satan! But we will be back."
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Why in the world would you want to tell people, "These fuzzy-looking buildings are the ones we really care about the most. Targeting these would cause us the most grief"?
Either you want all the details fuzzed or none of them. The address of a building can be deduced pretty easily once you've pointed it out to them on the map. From there they can get public records of building plans or do their own surveillance planning. Why narrow the search to the most vulnerable or most valuable targets for them?
The guy is brilliant. We need only follow his example to rid us of another pesky problem -- one that has afflicted our country several times since 9/11. Corrupt politicians.
It is a proven fact that politicians are corrupted by money. Absolutely proven!
Therefore, we should immediately ban all political contributions. Not just by fat cats, but ALL political contributions. Oh, and none of this "I'll use my own money" -- we must also ban all political expenditures as well. No campaign ads, no flyers, no paid push pollers.
Actually, that sounds like a great idea... I'm starting to believe my own sarcasm. How sad is that?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
huh? you mean the supposed virtual-landlord of those churches isn't powerful enough to protect his own property?
why not pray for protection? REALLY test your faith - put it on the line and see where it gets you. if your churches suffer from terror targets, well, its the will of god and who's to argue with that? ;)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Isn't California running out of money, spare electricity capacity and (most importantly) fresh water? In terms of imminent threats, I'm surprised terrorism is even on the horizon.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Must have been those damn terrorists!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Agreed, think of it this way.
"they" could look up the address in a phone book, we better make publishing the address of the schools (or other buildings) illegal.
Of course nobody will go to school since it's illegal to give out the address.
Somehow I'm thinking "they" were able to find targets before google maps existed.
Those who can, do.
Terrorism is todays excuse to raise taxes. ( for the kids was the 90s ) Not surprising at all that they are doing this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why don't we just ban terrorism instead?
If he really cares about California he should blur his name on the next election ballot.
it's like the USA has been in some kind decaying orbit for the last decade. just when you think the sepo's can't get worse they drop another notch.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
So that California doesn't have to update Google whenever soft targets change, I propose that California paint the roofs of sensitive locations fluorescent orange, then add satellite-visible concentric black circles to clearly indicate to Google that the building is a target.
California could also inform Google of the site's importance, by painting a large black number representing a score from 1-10.
Then, just in case the terrorists still find the place, outside the site we should post a large warning sign saying "Terrorism Prohibited at this Site."
So now when terrorists look at a map they can more easily identify potential targets because they are blurry.
To be fair, the actual text of the bill only requires the images to be blurred if the Operator already identifies the building. Specifically:
Still pretty dumb, though.
Each time I see a steeple with a lightning rod, I wonder about substantial lack of faith on the part of the congregation.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
And the CIA world factbook, and the US constitution while we are at it.
Also, the bible seems to stir up the terrorists pretty much, lets forbid it too!
Hey, also, the TV series "24" should be marked as munnition with export controls so that the terrorists cannot prepare themselves to what a CIA operative does!
Shall we go on?
NO SIG
And all I'm asking you to do is show me the increase in terrorist attacks since Online Maps have become available
We had one terrorist attack on US soil so far this century that cost almost 3,000 lives. Meanwhile, 45,000 die violently on US highways every single year, and another half million die horribly from cancer.
Our politicians are not only gutless cowards, but they're STUPID gutless cowards with no sense of proportion whatever.
Free Martian Whores!
As others have mentioned, terrorism is the new bogeyman to
1. to keep people distracted from domestic issues
2. fund more military and/or homeland 'security' spending
3. justify more idiotic legislation like this one
I'm not afraid of Terrorists. I'm afraid of the idiots who believe that Terrorists are our biggest problem, thereby keeping these jackasses in power.
Reminds me of a German politician who suggested an innovative solution against kids browsing porn: Porn sites must be offline until 10 pm!
It's the fact they always seem to say everything they think.
Dumbest asses ever. All of them. Republicans. Democrats. Whatever.
Your Governor was on This Week last week (or maybe it was the week before last?), and he said, TWICE, that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
So I think he agrees with you.
Free Martian Whores!
Ed Gooberman, you fail to grasp Tae-Kwon Leep. Approach me so that you may see.
Boot to the Head
You are lucky Ed Gooberman. Few novices experiece so much of Tae-Kwon Leep so soon.
What, is a blur like a magical force field? Sheesh, any *good* terrorist would do it the old fashion way anyway - go to the address and take a picture. There are so many factors to a terrorist attack, how you enter, (if) you want to be alive after- how to exit... blurs do nothing but...make the building blurry.
Politicians have to be the stupidist creatures on earth.
Maybe we'd have less terrorism if we banned politcians.
Hey, terrorist were *reading* maps to plan terrorist attacks. Let's outlaw reading!
But if you dare say "Maybe we shouldn't put automatic assault rifles into the hands of anyone with a driver's license", then the gun freaks go ape-shit.
Why is it that they'll ban and outlaw everything, except the obvious?
Secondly, if someone was a terrorist, wouldn't they know then to attack anything on the maps that are blurry?
Oh, my head hurts. Stop the planet, I want to get off.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Agreed, think of it this way.
"they" could look up the address in a phone book, we better make publishing the address of the schools (or other buildings) illegal.
Of course nobody will go to school since it's illegal to give out the address.
Somehow I'm thinking "they" were able to find targets before google maps existed.
"They" were. Humans have fought each other for all of known history. Only recently have there been technological means of reconissance. Reconissance managed to get done before there were satellites and online maps or computers. Even if this map-blurring were 100% effective at its stated purpose (my bet is that it won't be), all it would accomplish is the removal of one potential method. Unfortunately, there are many potential methods. This is just a feel-good worthless measure at best. At worst, it's an excuse for closer state control and regulation of online services -- anyone with some sense has known that politicians have desired that for a long time now. If it's like so many other things, all they need to do is wait for a good enough excuse.
For anyone who thinks this will accomplish anything, I say to you that it's the height of hubris to assume that you are so clever while your enemy is so stupid. Many needless deaths and military defeats have resulted from this sort of thinking. If you're not a strategist and don't understand these basic things, is it so much to ask that you refrain from making strategic decisions? The reality is that if some criminal group really wants to wreak havoc and if they don't give a damn about their own lives and are willing to die in the attempt to do so, there's not a lot you can do to stop them. At least not without destroying whatever freedoms we have left, which is what any truly effective measures would do. I didn't cause this to be true and I don't like it either, but we seriously need to work with the reality of the situation if we are to understand or accomplish anything.
I think we forget that you're a lot more likely to die by being struck by lightning than by being hit by a terrorist attack. I'm so tired of the level of cowaradice that this particular issue reveals. Our ancestors (speaking of the USA) realized that there are things that are more important than life itself, such as freedom, which is why they were willing to go to war to fight and die for those things. Personally, I'd rather keep all of my freedoms even if that meant that my chances of dying in a terrorist attack were increased 100-fold. For those of you who think that's an extreme position or an unwise choice, I have a question: if not for something truly good and wholesome and wonderful that fills your life with purpose, such as the freedom to be who you are and live your own life, what exactly are you living for that makes you so afraid of death, especially a particularly unlikely death? If you have them, what kind of message does your cowardice send to your children? That you should give up everything that is sacred to you for any fear or any bully who comes along? No wonder you are so afraid of dying; the breath in your lungs is the only thing about you that seems truly alive.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Yeah... I'm pretty sure that even with NO map i could still find a school, just drive around for a bit and I will find one.
Or, like, find the school's website and look at their address there.
In fact, why even blur them? It would be sufficient to just de-list these things from map services, it's not like they find schools by looking for school shaped things, they just search the map for schools.
Of course, i don't think that de-listing them is anything less than moronic, but still, it at least makes more sense than blurring things.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Wait, so if we don't identify this complex of buildings with a football field, two baseball diamonds, swimming pool, large parking lot and sports team mascot painted on the 50 yard line as a school...it doesn't have to be blurred?
I'm not afraid of Terrorists. I'm afraid of the idiots who believe that Terrorists are our biggest problem, thereby keeping these jackasses in power.
Is anyone anyone really afraid of terrorists? Crackheads probably kill more people in America than terrorists do. Terrorists are dedicated enough to this to commit suicide in the process of doing it. They are not going to be deterred by the small amount of extra work necessary to survey a building rather than consulting google maps. All this does is narrow down the list of targets and piss everyone else off.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
"identified on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school, place of worship, or government or medical building or facility"
Ok... so by "government facility" is he including property that is owned by governmental agencies, but is leased out to private entities? Because otherwise, the ONLY major US terrorist target since 1995 didn't make the list.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Terrorist 1: Ok, i've printed out this map of the target, its a middleschool attended by 400 kids, if we crash a plane into it, we might be able to take half of it out and maybe kill 200 of the great satan's young.
Terrorist 2: Excellent, since we've taken over this plane in a post 9/11 environment where the average person who flies in a plane believes that if a terrorist takes over the plane, their lives are forfeit anyway, they had no problem revolting and attempting to kill us.
Terrorist 1: Yeah, that was rough, thanks be that we had our bottles of water to fight them off.
Terrorist 2: Don't forget our nail clippers and cuticle scissors! Anyway, I think our target should be over there, that's elm street. Aim between the soccer field and the baseball diamond.
Terrorist 1: Wait! That looks nothing like the picture! Its not blurred out like in the print out!
Terrorist 2: Drat, foiled again, CURSE YOU JOEL ANDERSON!!!!
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Oh, they're quite aware of proportion.
Most politicians are not stupid. They're just acutely aware that most of their votes come from people who are.
Being seen as strongly anti-terrorist at a time when America is At War (on terrorism) - believe it or not - actually nets popular support.
Political office is one of the most insecure jobs a person can hold (imagine if you had to campaign around your workplace to keep your job every few years - regardless of how well you actually do your job) - they have to be seen doing something, and actually fixing complex problems would take too many terms, require way too much bipartisan support, and most likely not be understood by most of the population. Even worse, since fixing real problems usually requires some sacrifice (usually financial) on the part of the people, it's practically a guaranteed way to get "fired".
So if I know it's there, I have to hide it and basically call MORE attention to it, but if I don't know it's there, I don't have to hide it? What kind of retarded logic is that?
Exactly. That's called the Streisand Effect! It was named after a member of America's most outstanding group of individuals renowned for litigiousness and not thinking things through. Most of them are from California.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
"Is anyone anyone really afraid of terrorists? Crackheads probably kill more people in America than terrorists do."
The reason they're called terrorists, is because they try to cause terror -- unreasoning fear is their goal.
We kill 40,000 of ourselves (in round numbers) in traffic accidents *every year*:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
That's approximately 10 times the current US death toll in Iraq. Every year!
Now, every life is precious, and no one should die needlessly. But it's good to keep terrorism in perspective.
TRANSLATION:
"Calif. Politician Thinks Blurred Online Maps Would Deter Terrorists"
In plain English, this may be: "Calif. Politician was paid by competing map companies to try to place limits on Google."
Does this asshat actually think that you cant fly an airplane into a building that is blurry? :P
I think this guy just wants to create a law where politicians and wealthy people have their homes censored from google map like sites, so that they're protected from YOU and not terrorists.
You're poor, and thats more of a threat than any supposed "terrorists"
All this will do will be to paint giant bullseye targets on all of the locations they want to "protect." Potential terrorists will see that the area is blurred out, investigate it on foot via spies and "sleeper agents" to plan their attack (which will produce much more detailed recon than some crummy single-frame Google Map satellite image).
If they're close enough to attack then they're close enough to reconnoiter this information for themselves anyway, and trying to "censor" it just shows them what we are afraid they will attack. Stupid measures like these are drowning our economy in opportunity losses -- if it goes through, some poor sap at Google is going to have to waste his days blurring out little bits of the map in a totally vain attempt at some hick senator's backwards notions of security.
Seriously, Congress, leave espionage to the people you appointed to carry out such activities. Meddling in things you don't know about is asinine.
Why are we so scared of doing anything that might "help terrorists"? If you install a drinking fountain and a terrorist takes a sip, you just helped a terrorist. If you write a software program downloaded by a terrorist, you just helped a terrorist. Many of you reading this have held doors open for terrorists. Things that help everybody help terrorists. And trying to prevent helping terrorists usually means being unhelpful to everybody. "I don't want California to be helping map out future targets for terrorists" is the kind of thing idiots worry about.
Maybe the senator should move to Afghanistan and team up with the Taliban. Their ends goals of a meedieval society are remarkably consistent. Maybe that was the Taliban's plan all along!
Interestingly, be careful taking GPS to China. You need special approval from the government or you get arrested for espionage. Maybe here's a model for California?
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
That's a nice idea, but does it actually work? Or does it just mean that when someone breaks into your house, he's pretty likely to be carrying a gun? I suspect the latter.
when someone breaks in, he will likely be carrying a gun or weapon. that's the fixed or 'given' part. he knows he's planning on something that might end in violence, so of COURSE he's bringing something with him.
the homeowner is not the fixed part, its the variable part. currently, the attacker will believe that MOST victims are not 'carrying' or don't have guns nearby. they assume they have the upper hand. THAT is the part you need to manipulate. if the laws were changed such that MOST home owners had guns, do you think the attacker is going to ASSUME the same chances - that the victim won't be armed?
that's the only part you can engineer, I think. balance of power. it sucks, but when you have a DIS balance, you need to RE balance it. at least that's my theory. and no, I don't own a gun and have no plans to; but I won't deny anyone their right to have one if they choose to. either 'everyone gets them' or 'no one gets them'. the 'no one' part is already totally impossible, so that leaves us only 1 other choice. simple when you look at it from a logical POV.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
That's interesting. UK has a gun ban... Currently, their version of the ATF suspects that the number of guns within the country has tripled since that ban. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
Now, they have moved on to a pointy or slashy object ban (knives) despite the fact that the gun crime is creeping upward. (Though prelimary numbers for last years showed a 3% decline in shotgun incidents.)