03/11/2009 5:30 pm
POV
Lawmaker Seeks Google Earth 'Censor'
California lawmaker Joel Anderson isn’t playing around with Google Earth.
The Republican Assemblyman last month introduced legislation that would force Google Earth, which allows users to search various locales, to blur specific buildings and places.
Churches, government buildings and schools, for example, would be "censored." The move, he says, will help prevent potential attacks on sensitive areas. Said Anderson to CNET:
I looked at where we’ve had security issues in the past and, potentially, might have issues in the future. Churches and synagogues have been bombed. So have federal buildings and then, of course, 9/11. So, the threats are out there and as a state legislator, public safety is my No. 1 job. To ignore that fact would be irresponsible.
The terrorists who stormed Mumbai last year reportedly used Google Earth to map out the city. Asked if his bill represents an attack on technology, Anderson insisted technology’s "fantastic," "but now that we know there’s a threat, how could we not address this?" Potential terrorists, he warns, could use Google Earth to map out buildings and air ducts, because apparently it has X-ray vision.
Still, we can understand where Assemblyman Anderson’s coming from — can you?
Click here to read the entire CNET interview.
- Email this Post
- login or register to post comments
11 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
I disagree with Anderson. The Mumbai terrorists could just as easily have used tourist maps and brochures to plan their attack, or gone on an in-person recon; Google Earth was simply more convenient, not an enabler in itself.
As far as the "types of places" that are vulnerable to attack: when you close one avenue to a determined attacker, he’ll just choose another. Can’t blow up the church? I’ll hit this school. School too well protected? I’ll take the shopping mall. Pretty soon you have gone to great expense and inconvenience trying to lock EVERYTHING down, your citizens can barely move, and STILL you will be vulnerable to attack. Think of Moscow, 1999: what was getting attacked there were normal, run-of-the-mill apartment buildings in the dead of night. The intent was not maximum casualties but to send the message: You are not safe in your own beds.
Terrorism is not mysterious or magical; it is just CRIME. It’s time to stop inadvertently raising "terrorists" to some higher level than any other criminals who intrude, kidnap, kill, maim, destroy property, etc. They are NOT special. We need to quit acting like they are, because the end result is only hurting ourselves.
Although I respect the opinions of my fellow bloggers on this thread, in this instance I have to say I agree with Joel Anderson on this one. As an I.T. professional, I know how to hack into computers if I wanted to. Invade and snoop in email accounts, members lists and contact information and websites of others, again if I wanted to. The saving grace is I have the moral compass to realize I have no desire to do any of those things. But not everyone is like me.
And if any of you or others on this site have used Google Earth, you know it is an awesome too. In the hands of someone like me who simply enjoys seeing up close, all points of our planet as if I am there, it is harmless. But for “criminals” as Lila referred to them (and I agree) it is not harmless, it is homework. And Google Earth is the equivalent of a visual Wikipedia compared with having to fly to America, travel to a specific state and take reconnoissance photos and video. Why should we make it easier for those who are planning on doing us harm?
Based on the article his objective isn’t to blur all locations, just sensitive ones. I have always believed this is appropriate. The White House, Pentagon, and high rises in our country, etc. etc. that may be sensitive to a nut’s attack. Google Earth takes the viewer in so close you can see doors and the interior of some buildings. Where the front doors are, side doors, drive ways, loading docks, they show you EVERYTHING.
So as long as his legislation is geared toward national buildings, monuments and high rise buildings I think he is on the right track. Yes, if these criminals wanted to break in and do us harm they will any way, but why should be leave the key in the lock. :-)