Slashdot Mirror
Google Street View Gets Israeli Government's Nod
hypnosec writes "Israel's Justice Ministry has decided to give its approval to Google's Street View services to feature 360 degree images of the country's streets, according to a new, confirmed report. The ministry also assured that Tel Aviv's Law, Information and Technology Authority will cause no worries for Google from now on when it comes to deploying its sophisticated photography equipment in the streets, as well as in posting the photographs taken on its map service."
Was it some big deal that google was not allowed to map streets via this method in Israel?
Yeah, I know. It's hard to remember what it was like when things that weren't explicitly prohibited or dangerous were allowed by default. It's called "law and order". I'm afraid you've been subject to a police state for so long you've forgotten what it's like to not have to ask for permission, or to encounter "reason" when you do.
Israel has 1000 times greater exposure to security risk than America, however they see no reason to object to Google Street view, while America the brave is afraid someone might photograph the TSA checkpoints. ...Pathetic cowardice. Laughing stock of the world.
> I'm having a hard time figuring out how this improves security in Israel.
Israel is as secure as possible.
Your country is as paranoid as possible.
Big difference.
They'd just post 25 armed guards and bomb-detectors at each endangered location for a short time as the Google car drives by.
There are some real bizarre laws out there. For instance, United States companies are restricted in the resolution of satellite imagery of Israel.
This is truly bizarre, albeit true. With the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act in 1997, private companies in United States aren't allowed to provide high resolution satellite/aerial imagery of Israel. This restriction boggles my mind for a free country. Not that it matters much longer as other countries such as Turkey are going to provide high-resolution imagery of Israel in 2013.
It could be possible to construct a rudimentary "aerial" view by warping street view imagery (of course several areas and building roofs would not get into that picture) however. So yeah, there are some pretty weird restrictions out there.
- Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
I think you're coming at this from a very Western Lens. (Well, I assume.)
Israel's approach to security isn't as generalized as to find taking pictures [as an isolated action] suspicious, and with the healthy tourism it wouldn't really be effective anyway. They employ more direct security strategies (profiling, fast-reaction, military presence, road-blocks in hot areas, etc) as a deterrent and response. The Hamas MO also doesn't seem to attack landmarks/buildings either; Rocket barrages, directly attacking bus-lines, and kidnapping soldiers on patrol don't require much in the way of intel pictures.
Given the amount of disputed territory claimed by Israel, is this a political hot potato for Google? Will the Google-cars be driving round streets that the local authorities then help with identifying? I can imagine situations where the Google image makers come back with maps and a local authority says "yes, this is called so-and-so Street, this is called this-and-that Street" and six months later when the images are published there's a big outcry because these streets have been known locally by Palestinian names, or the Google-vans have been driving round new settlement areas and map them as being Israeli land while other communities claim that this has been illegally acquired land.
Given the outcry when Google has innocently and accidently attributed a border feature / street to the wrong country in other places, I can imagine this is a very hot potato to be dealing with...
What donations? Oh, you mean the donations that could have been made but for which there is no evidence, and whose existence or otherwise is nothing to do with the original article? Maybe that's why no-one has mentioned it. Besides you. Does that make you a nobody? Perhaps it does.