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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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!
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
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.
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?
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?
First of all, all legal automatic weapons require registration (including a background check, fingerprinting, etc) with the ATF, a signature from your local sheriff or chief of police, and payment of a (admittedly small) tax. They're also now obscenely expensive, as so few even exist that can even be transfered.
What can be obtained is a semi-automatic weapon---one that fires with each distinct pull of the trigger. There are few special regulations on such weapons, although California has actually done more to restrict them than most other states. For example, you can't own a rifle with a fixed magazine of greater than 10 rounds capacity.
As for why they don't ban guns outright, I refer you to District of Columbia v. Heller. To paraphrase, the basic conclusion of the supreme court was that individuals have a natural right to self defense, and that a ban of an entire class of weapons suitable for self defense is unconstitutional.
"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.
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"