There are concerns that detailed maps may threaten security

 

The US defence department has banned the giant internet search engine Google from filming inside and making detailed studies of US military bases.

Close-up, ground-level imagery of US military sites posed a "potential threat" to security, it said.

 

The move follows the discovery of images of the Fort Sam Houston army base in Texas on Google Maps.

 

A Google spokesman said that where the US military had expressed concerns, images had been removed.

 

Google has now been barred from filming and conducting detailed studies of bases, following the discovery of detailed, three-dimensional panoramas online - and in particular, views of the Texan base.

 

"Images include 360-degree views of the covered area to include access control points, barriers, headquarters, facilities and community areas," said the defence department in a statement quoted by AFP news agency.

 

It said such detailed mapping could pose a threat.

 

Google spokesman Larry Yu said the decision by a Google team to enter the Texas base and undertake a detailed survey, had been "a mistake".

 

He told the BBC News website that detailed study of such sensitive sites was not Google policy.

 

Individuals and governments

 

Military officials are currently looking into exactly what imagery is available - though it may not be able to order its removal if images are taken from public streets.

 

Among the popular mapping services offered by Google are Street View, which allows web users to "drive" along virtual US landscapes with ground-level views, and Google Earth, which offers detailed satellite and 3D images of locations around the world.

 

In this case, it was imagery offered on Street View that caused the concern.

 

But both have provoked complaints - from individuals depicted in the images and from governments concerned that satellite images could compromise security.

 

Gary Ross, a spokesman for the US Northern Command, told AFP that although such services could be useful, "there has to be a balance".

 

But Mr Yu said Google would listen to concerns about privacy and security.

 

"We try to have a compliant image removal policy - not only relative to the military but to consumers also," said Mr Yu.

 

"If people have concerns, they should contact us."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7282635.stm

can we say...... George Orwell's 1984!!

I have had this concern for sometime.

It would be easy for a hostle force to arieal bomb another country with the deatiled images.

 

I would be worried if I was a telecoms provider, and this showed there Data centers. These kind of buildings are just as senisitve,.

Every time I see a restriction on information I begin to wonder.. another load of bullcrap to make it sound like the defense dept/ etc. is doing something, and on the other end, the FBI or CIA or now Homeland Security is dropping the ball on solving the cases they have opened.

Not too long ago, I had picked up a hitchhiker in uniform trying to get to a base in the U.P. They took down all the signs to the armory for security reasons - we had no clue how to get there! It took an extra hour or two wandering around town looking for the base.. (which, of course, terrorists could have done just as well..)

What gets me is this: In the past, each time there was a terror threat, they knew it, and had people on the case. They waited too long and/or canned good people, and then bad things happened. So now, we need to hide all information (even though it's already out there), because our own agencies can't do the jobs they're supposed to do? Well, by now, I think they're not about to let another mistake slip by their noses (I hope not, at least) - like they did with 9/11/01 and the earlier bombing of the trade center. So, how much do we need to hide, when it's already been seen and made available for so long?? Seems like trying to put a cork in an open bottle, after most of the contents are already in the glasses.

And you have to wonder about our government - remember the Chinese Embassy we bombed in Belgrade? OOPS! Better keep those maps available, because one agency can't always get access to the other's maps - and using old maps can lead to some pretty bad mistakes! Yesterday's phone junction in Belgrade could be tomorrow's Hotel Hilton..

All I can say is: Duck Soup. Take one chicken, one turkey, and no duck; add 4 heads of cabbage. Stir. If anyone offers it to you - Duck!:laugh3:

Cut the fuel first to stop the fire.

 

The first line of defense starts with reducing the threat. Basically, stirring a hornets nest can lead to stings, no matter what else you try! I think we have our policy priorities backwards - letting dictators rule with iron fists to placate business interests inadvertently builds support for religious extremists, since they're about the only opposition left in those places, and everyone wants rid of the dictator.

Supporting countries with leadership that come down clumsily & hard in dealing with bad apples - this winds up hurting innocent by-standards - & is almost certain to create animosity that boils over and sting us. Once you've got the ire of a whole people against you, there's only time between the next tragic event. I find what the terror groups do to be appalling - but what fuels their base of support, and provides them with willing converts is of equal concern. When there's massive unemployment, unrest, and poor respect for human rights by a ruling elite, there's bound to be trouble.

So the old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" makes sense here.

We should keep the obvious images from falling into the wrong hands - but by now, that may already be too late. However, if we truly set a good example, and treat all others like we ourselves wish to be treated, then the forces pushing people to the extremes disappears, and with it goes the extreme threat.

Deletion, yummy.

 

Anybody else getting excited over telescreens?

Pardon?

It's a good idea from the Pentagon, for a change.