Article Entry
04 Mar 2009
Comments:30
California Bill Would Blur Online Mapping Programs; We Want Your Thoughts on This Legislation
Added by USGIF Category: Daily Intelligence Brief, General
PC Magazine just came out with this article about proposed legislation in California that would require all virtual mapping programs to blur out schools, churches and government/medical buildings. Those mapping providers would face hefty fines and/or jail time if they do not comply. The purpose of the bill is to protect critical infrastructure and lives, and was sparked on by the use of online mapping programs by terrorists in the recent Mumbai attacks.
The fine for not complying would be up to $250,000, and executives and board member of the mapping companies — who knowingly don’t comply — could face jail time. So, what did Google have to say about this? Here’s their press statement, which is rather innocuous:
“We are happy to speak with Assemblyman Anderson regarding this legislation and hope to have a productive conversation. Google Maps and Google Earth provide users with a rich, immersive experience, offering useful information and enabling greater understanding of a specific location or area.”
As professionals working in the mapping, GEOINT and GIS arenas, what do we think about this legislation? Of course, we are all about saving lives and protecting people – especially on the defense and intelligence side of GEOINT. But, is it a compromise for mapping providers? Even with the images blurred out, will the terrorists be able to figure out where key targets are anyway? We are torn on this one, and actually would like some illumination from our readers.
Tags: California Bill, GEOINT, GIS, Google Earth, Imagery Mapping, Legislation
They might as well put a bullseye on everything they are deeming critical. If a terrorits wants to destroy something, they will find a way. It won’t matter whether they can see the sidewalks around a building when a plane or truck-bomb crashes into the infrastructure. They could blur the imagery to 100 meters a pixel, but the address location will still show exactly where something is, now let’s consider blurring the GPS coordinates to the point of being ineffective. If the Assemblyman’s concern is nadir imagery versus oblique images then that should be addessed differently as that’s when critical infrastructure truly shows up in an image.
Andrew, great comment. Thanks for sharing. You bring up a good point about blurring GPS coordinates to the point of ineffectiveness.
If we are going to move forward in terms in technological advancement, it needs to be all inclusive. We can’t have states, town etc. deciding whether they want to participate in the advancement of our society or not. As Pollock said above, it would not take a terrorist brain trust to figure things out.
I am sure the government blurs out items they do not want mapped, so why can’t an Assemblyman from California do the same?
I’ll have to go with Andrew. The idea that by blurring out schools, churches, and government buildings, we’ll better secure these edifices from a terrorist attack ranks right up there with the asinine argument that, by discussing warrantless wiretaps, we somehow “gave the enemy useful information about our tactics..”.
It furthermore creates the very real problem of assigning target values to geographical locations/building/features (i.e. – what about major buildings like, umm, a sykscraper in New York City that has a local population of 3000 people?) Do those get included? What about my house? If Dick Cheney can have his house blurred, why can’t I have the same? I see major problems here.
I don’t see how this legislation would achieve its goal. I live in Washington State. Since California law doesn’t apply to me, I could look at all the high-res California imagery, e.g. NAIP, I want. Another senario would be for web providers of imagery to filter out requests coming from California IP numbers. The only terrorists that will even be inconvenienced by this would be the home-grown Californian ones.
If we’re worrying about terrorists working out where schools are shouldn’t we take down all those signs that announce you are entering a school zone beside the roads?
The whole idea is too stupid for words, The Sun (a UK tabloid) was recently scaremongering about a nuclear submarine base being visible on Google Earth/Maps (http://www.geo2web.com/2009/03/03/sun-stupidity-watch-no-faslane-was-never-censored/) – while completely ignoring the fact you can drive along the road outside the base (past the big sign saying Faslane Naval Base) if you want.
Comment from Linked-IN:
“The NYS GIS clearinghouse went through a similar phase right after 9-11. They decided that aerial photo tiles containing sensitive sites would require special authorization in order to obtain them. I am not affiliated with NYSGIS, so someone from that office might have better insight on how they made that decision. My thoughts at the time were that showing a large white blank spot on an aerial photo made it easier for potential terrorists to identify the sensitive sites the government was trying to protect.”
Posted by Don Meltz
Another one from Linked-In:
I’m a Californian and I sent a note to my State Senator, Joe Simitian. His office did a great job following up with me. Below is a quote from the reply which provides the explicit bill and the status of it. His office pointed out that it is early in the process. Literally, thousands of bills have been introduced. Some of which are quite silly. (ok they didn’t say the bit about some being silly.) They will change a lot and many will not come up to a vote in the State Senate. While I’ll be keeping an eye out for this one, I won’t be losing sleep over it just yet.
The bill in question is AB 255. You can read a copy of Assemblyman
Anderson’s bill here:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_255&sess=CUR&house=B&author=anderson
To quote directly from the Legislative Counsel’s summary:
–
This bill would prohibit an operator, as defined, of a commercial
Internet Web site or online service that makes a virtual globe browser
available to members of the public from providing aerial or satellite
photographs or imagery of places in this state that have been identified
on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school, place of worship,
or government or medical building or facility unless those photographs
or images have been blurred.
The bill would also prohibit that operator from providing street view
photographs or imagery of those buildings and facilities. An operator
that violates these provisions would be guilty of a crime and subject to
a fine of not less than $250,000 for each day the operator is in
violation of these provisions.
In addition, an operator who is an executive officer or member of a
board of directors who knowingly violates these provisions would also be
subject to imprisonment in the state prison for one, 2, or 3 years
–
If you’ve already followed the link above before getting to this
paragraph, then you might have also clicked on the link that says
“Status”
( http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0251-0300/ab_255_bill_20090212_status.html)
Another comment from Linked-In:
I think all of this falls under a bigger category of issues relating to the ethical use of computing power, that is ever more powerful. With computing power growing at an exponential rate, we will soon have desktop computers capable of the type of computer modeling required to simulate nuclear tests. Super computers on our desktops could also be used to perform complex biological modeling (think of where that could go).
I have no answers, and it would seem that we can only censor computing power in one way or another (artificially limit the power of desktop computing, or blur out schools on online maps). But censoring in one form or another has had limited success. With cloud computing on the horizon, an unethical hacker can be anywhere in the world and gain access to vast computing power.
Perhaps the answer is vigilant surveillance (big brother style) with less censorship of the actual technologies so that ethical users can gain the full benefits of innovation.
The idea of censorship of geospatial information as a means of protection against terrorists is asinine on a number of levels. This pops up after every terrorist attack, usually suggested by some legislator or government drone whose entire understanding of the subject comes from “24.”
As far as the Mumbai attacks, India has always been incredibly restrictive in terms of the acquisition and distribution of geospatial information. Their policies have had significant negative economic consequences in terms of economic development, but it’s hard to see how that has afforded them any protection from terror attacks.
A common mistake is to assume that our enemy’s strategies and tactics are like ours, i.e., that they need aerial imagery, GPS, precision targeting, etc. Most “sensitive” sites are fairly easily identified by such exotic methods as looking in a phone book, doing a web search, or reading the sign on their door.
“Blurring” GPS coordinates? We did that, remember selective availability? We could go back to that, although it would cost literally billions of dollars in impacts to current technologies such as in-car nav, precision agriculture, etc. And the terrorists would have to read street signs to get where they’re going. That’ll show ‘em.
If this bill passes operators will just pull all imagery from California. This would be cheaper than accidently missing a church or school. I agree with Andrew. This is an ignorant piece of legislation. If someone is going to attack a building they will scout it out.
WOW! I wonder how the Terrorist found the WTC in 1993?
More comments from Linked-In:
“OBVIOUSLY – that won’t stop the terrorist attacks! PLUS – Califormia has a LOT more urgent problems than hindering the planning, and ONLY the planning, of these terrorist attacks!”
Posted by Kurt Loudon
Also, from Linked-In:
“In Hard Times, Fear Can Impair Decision-Making [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/jobs/07pre.html|leo://plh/http%3A*3*3www%2Enytimes%2Ecom*32008*312*307*3jobs*307pre%2Ehtml/hka2?_t=tracking_disc]”
Posted by Mehdi Bokhari
Even more from Linked-In:
“I guess California has previously hidden these locations from sight — probably in the same fog and smoke that passes for good budgeting and governance out there.”
Posted by Sam Bacharach
More from Linked-In:
“This is nothing new. At least Monmonier wrote a chapter about this type of Cartographic Disinformation in the 90′s with references to other literature into the 80′s…there is probably a precedent for this that is quite old that even predates the cold war…when this seemed popular practice. He mentions a cartographic historian, Brian Harley, who has observed government censorship of maps for centuries. As for legislating this type of thing, I cannot comment too much without formal legal training. I suppose privacy laws do not apply if the information being protected is not personally identifiable…new laws censoring maps…probable. According to Monmonier, the UK Ordnance Survey has been doing this for a while.”
Posted by Martin Kyle
I’m really surprised, as ridiculous as it is, it hasn’t happened sooner. As we all know, the amount of information that is publicly available is nothing short of astonishing, and honestly (as my ever security conscious spouse just pointed out) it’s probably too late now anyway to try and control availability.
Seriously, did we really think online maps (or any other public information) would be inaccessible to terrorists?
More from Linked-In:
“This article is why Geographers differ with Engineers and Scientists about technology. Geography is the motherlode of sciences because it describes the spatial intersection of faces, paces, and places. For example, when I was in Iraq doing Post-disaster Reconstruction, we had imagery and grid coordinates and everything else by putting layers and layers of vector maps upon vector maps but the final product was always a PowerPoint Slide (hours worth of work just putting a presentation), little dialogue (during a very long information meeting), and less reduction in terrorist activity (I was there during the Summer of 2007, the most violent time of the Surge). The process was frustrating to everyone and when I pragmatically explained why we should just leverage the technology to the Iraqi Government . . . the answer was the same (from engineers) “Blur out the Critical Infrastructure.” I returned home to Fayetteville, NC and our county had two grants (costing close to $2 million dollars) from DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security): 1. Take digital pictures of all public schools 2. Alert system at Fayetteville State University (FSU) after the Virginia Tech (VT) Shootings. After witnessing reconstruction in Iraq, I wrestled with it all because my high school (Pine Forest) was the first in the state of NC to have a shooting incident & there were several shooting incidents at or near the campust of FSU almost twenty years before the media jumped on Columbine or VT. Basically, the assymetrical combination of failing to properly address socioeconomic spaces of geography, fear from sensationalism and ignorance about the frequency and true impact of incidents is why more should really take a look at GIS as a tool, but not the beginning or end to the means of information. Engineers use a simple systems approach, but a Scientist really analyzes the spatial phenomenon with creativity. Let’s be Geopolitical Scientists and take a risk by explaining how better Social Engineering will be more effective Public Policy instead of letting political scientists manage geopolitics. This means we should boycott the use of GIS altogether if they try to limit the creativity or take a risk on the transparency (which has been the key to success for the Internet, GIS, Google, Amazon, and other technological advances). I hope people read some articles by Taylor Dinerman (food for some thought) about what we are doing and where we are going as a nation before we lose our leadership role in the global market of thought. v/r Ralph”
Posted by Ralph Stanton
From Linked-In:
Everything is critical. Malls, universities, local power plants, dams, day cares, gasoline stations, hotel lobbies, railroads, etc. With so many targets, this will be an impossible task. Terrorists will always check out locations in person since they need timing to do their work.
- Jeffrey Marcus
From Linked-In:
Blotting anything out does not protect the infrastructure or hide its location. It in fact could be argued that blotting critical assets just makes it easier not only to locate them but also validate that indeed it is an asset ‘we’ consider critical. Anyone using internet maps for harm or terror would not have to spend any time evaluating structures they suspected might be critical, we would just identify the assets for them by blurring them. If the counter to that says ‘well, we’ll also randomly blur non-critical assets to make it more difficult to determine which really is the critical asset.’ The response too that could be how would the decoys be selected, and would the owners of the decoys have to be willing to participate? If not what happens when you blur someone’s building that has created a marketing program that includes a “Find-the-store-nearest-to-you” feature?
This is another version of groups complaining about public information being available on the web, because it makes it easier to for neighbors to find out what I paid for my house, for example. Blurring assets does materially re-instate a significant level of difficulty, much less even replace the original level.
Just a few quick thoughts, Jeff
From Linked-In:
This is ridiculous… I agree with Will. By “blurring” the potential targets, they are actually pointing out the targets. Most schools look a lot like large strip malls from above, but now California has found a way to help the terrorists distinguish them.
We are again under-estimatiing their planning and reconnaissance techniques.
Another from Linked In:
Equally important, it seems counter productive, especially given how vague the legislation is written: might the obfuscation of hospital data lead to problems if one requires emergency services? whilst on holiday, does one forgo worship because the churches and temples have been removed?
I hardly think that Google maps is responsible for terrorist attacks anymore than the USGS would be if a would-be bomber used a topo sheet to plan his violence.
Our society relies on the free flow of information; one should remember how useless the Soviet Union’s maps were due to absurd secrecy. Is this how we should conduct ourselves in the United States?
What a load of crap. It amazes me that people are so gullible as to buy this bogus war on terror bs. If a group wants to attack a certain region they are not going to use Google Earth to carry out their heinous plans. Get a life folks.
From Linked In:
*
“China requires digital web map giving “in-correct” coordinate. On Google map, you can experience that by searching “Forbidden Palace, Beijing”, click “map” and “satellite” icons alternatively and you will experience that. All google map services there are affected. We do not have the same problem in Hong Kong so the boundary of Hong Kong/ China is dis-connected on Google map. I am quite sure terrorists use mobile phone and SMS. It would be good to ban SMS and mobile phone from this line of thought. Map is not too different from mobile phone. LBS, local search all can be banned in the name of security. Galileo published a book “DIALOGUE ON THE TIDES” and jailed because he discussed the concept of solar system in seventeen century. In 2009, in some countries 1) a lot of people are being “watched” 2) many people are not allowed to enter 3) some people disappeared/ caught without trial, 4) internet is watched at large and CNN/BBC/ Yahoo news etc are all banned. Hope your administration think twice about “civilization and core values” and not take such measures, in the name of public goods.”
From Linked-In:
I am shocked by the un-American spirit and ridiculous nature of Bill AB 255, and have written my California representatives asking to oppose it.
I also sent links to my friends to the article and comments, and to the web site where you can find your representative by Zip code and ask them to oppose the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html
Thank you for bringing this terrible bill to our attention.
From Linked-In:
“This is ridiculous. This will serve only to hinder future development and prevent Microsoft and Google from innovating the next best thing while they go back to scrub their old data and prepare to scrub updates. What is going to stop content providers from hosting offshore away from the reach of the CA legal arm! Besides an “aerial image” is just a continuous picture of already available discrete map online or published. What is next removing signs pointing to hospitals so terrorists cannot find them? How about telling Tom Tom that it cant have Hospitals in their GPS units because a terrorist could navigate to the facility? Give me a break, California needs to focus on its budget.”
I think it’s Hollywood trying to keep you from looking at thier houses. I hope this bill doesn’t pass…
Mr. Anderson may want to consult with some academics and GIS professionals in his region before moving forward on this issue….and I’m not talking about the people that work for Google or Yahoo or Mapquest. Masking this data sets a dangerous precedent that will offer no greater security for the buildings that Mr. Anderson is concerned about protecting. Mr. Anderson, come to the Where 2.0 conference being held in San Jose this May. Come to the ESRI Conference being held in San Diego this July. Talk with the professionals and see what they think. Speak with some academics at UC Santa Barbara or San Diego State University or the University of Redlands. Make an educated decision.
In this day and age, “social engineering” scams are crucial to prevent. Especially when it involves public utilities (esp. water systems). Putting this kind of info into the pblic domain would compromise a sense of security for regional water systems. Things that are viewable in Google Earth are not easily masked, but underground utilities that deal with health issues should be guarded as best as possible.