Open Source UK GPS Data
on
Open US GPS Data?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
We have been collecting GPS positions at 10 second intervals since we began operations in London in 2004 (we're a courier company with a technology twist). We have collected 173 million positions on a 24/7 basis (growing by about 1 million per day) across our bicycle, motorbike, and van fleet. We have been donating to OpenStreetMap for years and have released our data for noncommercial use via a public API http://api.ecourier.co.uk/ under a CC license. Have fun!
Saving bandwidth? The Bush campaign has raised hundreds of millions of dollars--who cares about a couple hundred or thousand more a month spent on bandwidth when you're buying in multi-gb blocks anyway?
I'm living in the UK and have been for years. It would be nice to be able to view his site, if only because he has a chance (against my vote and wishes) of becoming president so it is important I know about his views, and I be able to see, for example, copies of the ads that I cannot view because I do not get US TV.
If I was undecided, like some of my collegues, I as a NJ resident are entitled to waive my secret ballot and vote by fax up until election day (some states allow this). If you are living abroad I encourage you to do this asap by going to http://www.fvap.gov/pubs/onlinefpca.pdf and following the instructions on the form. As long as the fax is received by 2 Nov, and the real ballot is received no more than I think 1 week later, that vote is valid and will be counted (well, possibly, given past experience). The fact that actual voters both civilians and potentially military personel (even if all on-base traffic went through US proxies, which is dubius, as people might feel more comfortable using the net at a cafe or otherwise off base) will be denied valuable information that is needed to make an informed electoral decision. Given that US citizens via taxes and other means provide matching funds for those candidates, what this essentially means is that we can't see the fruits of something we helped, however indirectly, fund, and by extension, create(georgewbush.com).
Also, we need to understand that whomever is elected US President has a great deal of influence not only on Americans--so it would be a positive move, in the spirit of liberty and transparency, for those abroad to be able to view the information surrounding someone's candidacy, even if those persons cannot vote.
The bottom line is that actively seeking to prevent the dissemination of information about candidates for an election as important as the US Presidential election, when we know that cost is not an issue for the campaigns, speaks volumes about the candidate and his views. It is in keeping with the tradition of the Patriot act, fingerprinting and photographing even those US vistors from countries that do not require a visa to enter the US.
I don't know why the Campaign is doing this; it's an idiot decision that can only produce severely negative PR outside the US (as if more of this was needed--we're not the most popular team in town even in the UK) and probably within the US as well. Perhaps the reason is that Bush is writing off the expatriate vote anyway (military aside, it's overwhelmingly democratic / liberal) and feels that his views are providing too much ammunition to anti-us views abroad. Blocking access, though, is a childish, counter-productive, and heavy handed solution.
An almost identical study was published by Christian Ahlert of the Oxford Internet Institute, and featured on/. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/10/17 50232&mode=thread&tid=153&tid=99
See his website for more details http://www.ahlert.org
It's good to see that the authors of this article at least provide a reference to his work, but I think this slashdot thread should have mentioned the study that started it all!
Slashdot Mirror
We have been collecting GPS positions at 10 second intervals since we began operations in London in 2004 (we're a courier company with a technology twist). We have collected 173 million positions on a 24/7 basis (growing by about 1 million per day) across our bicycle, motorbike, and van fleet. We have been donating to OpenStreetMap for years and have released our data for noncommercial use via a public API http://api.ecourier.co.uk/ under a CC license. Have fun!
Saving bandwidth? The Bush campaign has raised hundreds of millions of dollars--who cares about a couple hundred or thousand more a month spent on bandwidth when you're buying in multi-gb blocks anyway?
I'm living in the UK and have been for years. It would be nice to be able to view his site, if only because he has a chance (against my vote and wishes) of becoming president so it is important I know about his views, and I be able to see, for example, copies of the ads that I cannot view because I do not get US TV.
If I was undecided, like some of my collegues, I as a NJ resident are entitled to waive my secret ballot and vote by fax up until election day (some states allow this). If you are living abroad I encourage you to do this asap by going to http://www.fvap.gov/pubs/onlinefpca.pdf and following the instructions on the form. As long as the fax is received by 2 Nov, and the real ballot is received no more than I think 1 week later, that vote is valid and will be counted (well, possibly, given past experience). The fact that actual voters both civilians and potentially military personel (even if all on-base traffic went through US proxies, which is dubius, as people might feel more comfortable using the net at a cafe or otherwise off base) will be denied valuable information that is needed to make an informed electoral decision. Given that US citizens via taxes and other means provide matching funds for those candidates, what this essentially means is that we can't see the fruits of something we helped, however indirectly, fund, and by extension, create(georgewbush.com).
Also, we need to understand that whomever is elected US President has a great deal of influence not only on Americans--so it would be a positive move, in the spirit of liberty and transparency, for those abroad to be able to view the information surrounding someone's candidacy, even if those persons cannot vote.
The bottom line is that actively seeking to prevent the dissemination of information about candidates for an election as important as the US Presidential election, when we know that cost is not an issue for the campaigns, speaks volumes about the candidate and his views. It is in keeping with the tradition of the Patriot act, fingerprinting and photographing even those US vistors from countries that do not require a visa to enter the US.
I don't know why the Campaign is doing this; it's an idiot decision that can only produce severely negative PR outside the US (as if more of this was needed--we're not the most popular team in town even in the UK) and probably within the US as well. Perhaps the reason is that Bush is writing off the expatriate vote anyway (military aside, it's overwhelmingly democratic / liberal) and feels that his views are providing too much ammunition to anti-us views abroad. Blocking access, though, is a childish, counter-productive, and heavy handed solution.
But from George W.--who would expect any less?An almost identical study was published by Christian Ahlert of the Oxford Internet Institute, and featured on /. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/10/17 50232&mode=thread&tid=153&tid=99
See his website for more details http://www.ahlert.org
It's good to see that the authors of this article at least provide a reference to his work, but I think this slashdot thread should have mentioned the study that started it all!