Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[WicketView]

I think this was a topic that was bound to come up sooner or later. Google blurs out images of sensitive locations starting at the level of  airports in the US, but does not do so
for Indian cities. However, the resolution available for most Indian cities (at least Mumbai) is not at the highest level, which would be the case for a NY or a Chicago, say. Now, I suppose one would not describe the latests attacks as going on in sensitive areas ... but still google maps may have proved useful in showing the routes. Do people think that they would have found other methods to plan their attack with little extra effort and so google maps should continue to be there? Or do people feel that it should be stopped, inspite of the conveneince it affords to the general populace?



http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/How_Google_Earth_helped_terrorists/articleshow/3862879.cms

MUMBAI: Google Earth is the seventh popular Internet application tool but it is being growingly misused by terror groups to have the first
glimpse of sensitive places to plot attacks without moving an inch.

Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Fahim Ahmed Ansari, arrested by Uttar Pradesh Police in February this year with maps and details of the spots hit during the recent terror attacks, in his statement had conceded that his masters showed him the maps on Google Earth to pin-point the specific targets.

The interrogation report of Fahim, who was trained at the Baitul Mujahideen camp in Pakistan in his statement said that a top Lashkar commander 'Kahasa' asked him to show the spots in Mumbai on the Google Earth.

"I was shown the map of Mumbai in Googleearth.com. Kahasa asked me to point out places in Mumbai he noted down and marked those places in the map," he told interrogators, adding, "I was first asked about my residence location and in-laws location in Mumbai."

Sensitive places like offices of Commissioner of Police and DGP, Gateway of India, Navy Nagar, Colaba, Taj Mahal Hotel, Mantralaya, Wankhede Stadium, Race Course, Church Gate Railway Station, Stock Exchange Building, BARC, Kalina Army Gate and other such spots were located and marked on the Google Earth Map.

Fahim, along with Sabauddin, were brought to Mumbai and remanded to police custody till December 31. They are being questioned to ascertain whether they had provided the minute details to Lashkar terrorists to help them plan the terror strike here on November 26.

The Google Earth Map gives a birds-eye view of the city providing detailed topography of the area in the forms of actual photographs. The details provided in the application can be useful for identifying buildings, roads, streets.

Fahim also said that Lashkar top brass was interested in knowing the height of airport wall, wire fencing and location of aircraft runway from the nearest building.

"They also enquired about the possibility of striking an aircraft from the nearest building. Kahasa was also keen to know about the availability of taxis near DGP office," he said in the statement given to UP Police.

The terrorists who attacked the Metropolis were well acquainted with the location of their targets and the streets leading to them. The lone terrorist arrested by Mumbai police, Kasab, reportedly told the investigators that their group was also given detailed location of spots using the software.

In the wake of the misuse of the Google software, a petition was also filed in the Bombay High Court after the Mumbai terror attack to blur the images of sensitive spots shown on the software till the case was decided.

Advocate Amit Karkhanis who filed the petition said that online satellite imaging was used in the satellite planning of the attacks and the online software does not have any control to prevent its misuse or give limited access.

[flute]

we could make it a bit difficult instead of blocking it..say google not allow india related images from outside India. within India, we should have the confidence and efficiency to deal with internal enemies.

[kingcool1432]

Isn't this like saying "Make wifi illegal because the terrorists used wifi"? Or the US banning all flights to New York because that's how terrorists get there.

[kban1]

Isn't this like saying "Make wifi illegal because the terrorists used wifi"? Or the US banning all flights to New York because that's how terrorists get there.

No, this is an outrageously bad analogy.

Google does not show imagery of sensitive places when it happens to be in the US.

Other countries have requested the same of Google. And the Indian government mentioned this also in the wake of the Mumbai blasts (this is actually  a little bit of an old news).

Google Earth plots the Bhabha Atomic Research center as well and its a legitimate request to ask them to blur that as well as other sensitive spots out for the sake of national security.

You cannot apply one policy in the country of your incorporation (either because they wont allow you in the interest of national security or because you recognize the danger inherent therein by yourself) where you have more at stake and follow another policy in another country where the stakes for you are lower.

To use the "wifi" analogy to justify this uneven application of corporate policy does not cut it.

[kingcool1432]

Isn't this like saying "Make wifi illegal because the terrorists used wifi"? Or the US banning all flights to New York because that's how terrorists get there.

No, this is an outrageously bad analogy.

Google does not show imagery of sensitive places when it happens to be in the US.

Other countries have requested the same of Google. And the Indian government mentioned this also in the wake of the Mumbai blasts (this is actually  a little bit of an old news).

Google Earth plots the Bhabha Atomic Research center as well and its a legitimate request to ask them to blur that as well as other sensitive spots out for the sake of national security.

You cannot apply one policy in the country of your incorporation (either because they wont allow you in the interest of national security or because you recognize the danger inherent therein by yourself) where you have more at stake and follow another policy in another country where the stakes for you are lower.

To use the "wifi" analogy to justify this uneven application of corporate policy does not cut it.

The issue is with public vs. private locations.

Blurring/hiding sensitive "Goverment" or research center localities are fine- they are "classified" and there is no realistic case where that information may ever be useful to anyone else. But the article mentions things like Wankhede Stadium, Race Course, Church Gate Railway Station etc so that does not apply here. Blurring out airports is a bit too much too.. Are you aware of any US airports which are blurred out on Google Maps?

[WicketView]

Isn't this like saying "Make wifi illegal because the terrorists used wifi"? Or the US banning all flights to New York because that's how terrorists get there.

No, this is an outrageously bad analogy.

Google does not show imagery of sensitive places when it happens to be in the US.

Other countries have requested the same of Google. And the Indian government mentioned this also in the wake of the Mumbai blasts (this is actually  a little bit of an old news).

Google Earth plots the Bhabha Atomic Research center as well and its a legitimate request to ask them to blur that as well as other sensitive spots out for the sake of national security.

You cannot apply one policy in the country of your incorporation (either because they wont allow you in the interest of national security or because you recognize the danger inherent therein by yourself) where you have more at stake and follow another policy in another country where the stakes for you are lower.

To use the "wifi" analogy to justify this uneven application of corporate policy does not cut it.

The issue is with public vs. private locations.

Blurring/hiding sensitive "Goverment" or research center localities are fine- they are "classified" and there is no realistic case where that information may ever be useful to anyone else. But the article mentions things like Wankhede Stadium, Race Course, Church Gate Railway Station etc so that does not apply here. Blurring out airports is a bit too much too.. Are you aware of any US airports which are blurred out on Google Maps?

There are two levels of the problem:
1) Google does not blur out the places you call Govt locations in India, while it does so in the US. I believe there is no good reason for them to do so.
2) Airport locations are not blurred to the extent that you can't get driving directions to them, but satellite pictures/High Res that are available of other roads are blurred. Check the area around JFK/La Guardia (which I was looking at fairly recently).
3)To me there is no reason why Google cannot do the above. It is a question of India's political clout or lack thereof. But, I actually did want to bring up the debate to your analogy ...wifi. ie. Are the extremely high resolution images of public places (like Taj, streets of Mumbai), which are immensely useful for normal people a real problem in security? If so, I would be prepared to give up the convenience of google/yahoo maps (which I find extremely useful). To me the answer would lie in  whether this information would have been possible to get with a little more effort. I mean, if the terrorists could plan out such a detailed attack, how difficult would we make it for them by making them move an inch and buy a map of Mumbai, or send someone to the city to drive through? My guess is not much ... and so beyond the restricted places stuff, IMO this is all meaningless. However,  I have found earlier that many disagree ... hence asking for opinions here.

[kban1]

Isn't this like saying "Make wifi illegal because the terrorists used wifi"? Or the US banning all flights to New York because that's how terrorists get there.

No, this is an outrageously bad analogy.

Google does not show imagery of sensitive places when it happens to be in the US.

Other countries have requested the same of Google. And the Indian government mentioned this also in the wake of the Mumbai blasts (this is actually  a little bit of an old news).

Google Earth plots the Bhabha Atomic Research center as well and its a legitimate request to ask them to blur that as well as other sensitive spots out for the sake of national security.

You cannot apply one policy in the country of your incorporation (either because they wont allow you in the interest of national security or because you recognize the danger inherent therein by yourself) where you have more at stake and follow another policy in another country where the stakes for you are lower.

To use the "wifi" analogy to justify this uneven application of corporate policy does not cut it.

The issue is with public vs. private locations.

Blurring/hiding sensitive "Goverment" or research center localities are fine- they are "classified" and there is no realistic case where that information may ever be useful to anyone else. But the article mentions things like Wankhede Stadium, Race Course, Church Gate Railway Station etc so that does not apply here. Blurring out airports is a bit too much too.. Are you aware of any US airports which are blurred out on Google Maps?

public vs private locations as defined by whom ?

terrorist tragets vary from country to country based on a variety of factors.

An airport is always a target, irrespective of whatever country. Whether or not US restricts Google from blurring that out should have no impact on whether the Indian govt asks Google for that.

And a railway station in India may very well be  a terrorist target as opposed to the US where hardly people ride the train. terrorist threats and definition of such is geography specific. Remember the subway attacks in Europe ?

Same goes for playing grounds. Which incidentally are considered high security targets in the US as well. The difference may well be access (the US does not have porous borders as compared to India) and other levels of security present in the US. Given that the US might not require such restrictions.

While beefing up our security measures is the correct solution to such an issue, Does that mean that we, in the interim,should not ask for measures that might mitigate such things ? or should we wait for  a stadium with 100,000 to be blown up ?

Also, how many US atomic / nuclear research centers or military bases are non blurred -- compare that to Bhabha Atomic research center.

[kingcool1432]

Isn't this like saying "Make wifi illegal because the terrorists used wifi"? Or the US banning all flights to New York because that's how terrorists get there.

No, this is an outrageously bad analogy.

Google does not show imagery of sensitive places when it happens to be in the US.

Other countries have requested the same of Google. And the Indian government mentioned this also in the wake of the Mumbai blasts (this is actually  a little bit of an old news).

Google Earth plots the Bhabha Atomic Research center as well and its a legitimate request to ask them to blur that as well as other sensitive spots out for the sake of national security.

You cannot apply one policy in the country of your incorporation (either because they wont allow you in the interest of national security or because you recognize the danger inherent therein by yourself) where you have more at stake and follow another policy in another country where the stakes for you are lower.

To use the "wifi" analogy to justify this uneven application of corporate policy does not cut it.

The issue is with public vs. private locations.

Blurring/hiding sensitive "Goverment" or research center localities are fine- they are "classified" and there is no realistic case where that information may ever be useful to anyone else. But the article mentions things like Wankhede Stadium, Race Course, Church Gate Railway Station etc so that does not apply here. Blurring out airports is a bit too much too.. Are you aware of any US airports which are blurred out on Google Maps?

There are two levels of the problem:
1) Google does not blur out the places you call Govt locations in India, while it does so in the US. I believe there is no good reason for them to do so.

That is probably because all we did was make noises about it to the press rather than actually getting in touch with Google and following up. For instance, check out this article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Google_Earth_agrees_to_blur_pix_of_key_Indian_sites/articleshow/1559236.cms dated Feb 2007. Google has stated they're willing to blur out anything from a list provided by the government. And the fact that they haven't leads me to assume we havenn't gotten around to providing them one yet.

2) Airport locations are not blurred to the extent that you can't get driving directions to them, but satellite pictures/High Res that are available of other roads are blurred. Check the area around JFK/La Guardia (which I was looking at fairly recently).

Check out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_images_censored_by_Google_Maps . They show only 3 airports have ever been blurred by Google maps, curiously all of them in NY. I'm not sure the same holds true for all airports.

3)To me there is no reason why Google cannot do the above. It is a question of India's political clout or lack thereof.

See reply to 1.

But, I actually did want to bring up the debate to your analogy ...wifi. ie. Are the extremely high resolution images of public places (like Taj, streets of Mumbai), which are immensely useful for normal people a real problem in security? If so, I would be prepared to give up the convenience of google/yahoo maps (which I find extremely useful). To me the answer would lie in  whether this information would have been possible to get with a little more effort. I mean, if the terrorists could plan out such a detailed attack, how difficult would we make it for them by making them move an inch and buy a map of Mumbai, or send someone to the city to drive through? My guess is not much ... and so beyond the restricted places stuff, IMO this is all meaningless. However,  I have found earlier that many disagree ... hence asking for opinions here.

IMO it would be wrong to limit innovation in technology because of political reasons, with a few exceptions- publishing pics of nuclear reactors being one of them. Why should the Goverment play Big Brother and control what I can and cannot see, IF the information is already in the public domain [eg. The wankehede stadium].

That was where I was going with the wifi example, just because something is used for the wrong reasons doesn't mean we should ban them completely.

[kingcool1432]

Isn't this like saying "Make wifi illegal because the terrorists used wifi"? Or the US banning all flights to New York because that's how terrorists get there.

No, this is an outrageously bad analogy.

Google does not show imagery of sensitive places when it happens to be in the US.

Other countries have requested the same of Google. And the Indian government mentioned this also in the wake of the Mumbai blasts (this is actually  a little bit of an old news).

Google Earth plots the Bhabha Atomic Research center as well and its a legitimate request to ask them to blur that as well as other sensitive spots out for the sake of national security.

You cannot apply one policy in the country of your incorporation (either because they wont allow you in the interest of national security or because you recognize the danger inherent therein by yourself) where you have more at stake and follow another policy in another country where the stakes for you are lower.

To use the "wifi" analogy to justify this uneven application of corporate policy does not cut it.

The issue is with public vs. private locations.

Blurring/hiding sensitive "Goverment" or research center localities are fine- they are "classified" and there is no realistic case where that information may ever be useful to anyone else. But the article mentions things like Wankhede Stadium, Race Course, Church Gate Railway Station etc so that does not apply here. Blurring out airports is a bit too much too.. Are you aware of any US airports which are blurred out on Google Maps?

public vs private locations as defined by whom ?

This one is easy enough. Any area you can legally take photographs of is public by inference. Do you suggest we stop showing aerial camera views during cricket matches as Wankhede as well?

terrorist tragets vary from country to country based on a variety of factors.

An airport is always a target, irrespective of whatever country. Whether or not US restricts Google from blurring that out should have no impact on whether the Indian govt asks Google for that.

And a railway station in India may very well be  a terrorist target as opposed to the US where hardly people ride the train. terrorist threats and definition of such is geography specific. Remember the subway attacks in Europe ?

Same goes for playing grounds. Which incidentally are considered high security targets in the US as well. The difference may well be access (the US does not have porous borders as compared to India) and other levels of security present in the US. Given that the US might not require such restrictions.

   Exactly my point. Schools, hotels, churches, stadiums, pretty much everything can be a terrorist target. Do you want all of them erased from the map?

While beefing up our security measures is the correct solution to such an issue, Does that mean that we, in the interim,should not ask for measures that might mitigate such things ? or should we wait for  a stadium with 100,000 to be blown up ?

Also, how many US atomic / nuclear research centers or military bases are non blurred -- compare that to Bhabha Atomic research center.

Look at article from India times I linked to in my response to WicketView. The onus is on us to provide lists to Google.

[kban1]

This one is easy enough. Any area you can legally take photographs of is public by inference. Do you suggest we stop showing aerial camera views during cricket matches as Wankhede as well?

Exactly my point. Schools, hotels, churches, stadiums, pretty much everything can be a terrorist target. Do you want all of them erased from the map?

Look at article from India times I linked to in my response to WicketView. The onus is on us to provide lists to Google.

Boss,

I think I am not expressing my POV clearly.

I am not blaming Google.  Yes, the onus is on the Indian govt to request Google.

I took issue with your argument that asking Google to remove some images is censorship akin to the "wifi" issue and I said that its a incorrect argument to put forward since Google complies with US requirements / self modulates images in the US and it is really not censorship if some of these images are restricted.

I dont think one should block out directions to a stadium but if the Indian govt feels so and asks the same of Google, then they should restrict the 3 D visualization or blur out some of the details (as they have wrt JFK & La Guardia). The same goes for Airports.

Again, I dont want them erased from the map, or censored. But neither do I want the type of detailed view -- different angles, 3d visualizations, pictures -- available if the govt (any govt) deems it as a risk.

I think there exists significant room for striking a balance without getting boxed into a corner with the censorship stance or the public good vs private right argument.