Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) has been scolded by the United States military for producing images of the Fort Sam Houston army base in Texas. Complying with a request from the Pentagon, some of the 360-degree images have since been taken down, and Google has been officially banned from taking video images from inside army bases, because such images threaten national security.
Google and its car-top video equipment, which it had been using to capture a street view, had apparently been given access to the Fort Sam Houston base under the condition that it wouldn't survey the grounds. The fact that they did anyway -- and posted the images on the Internet -- is what Google spokesman Larry Yu is now calling a "mistake." (Whooooops...)
According to Reuters, however, "because many images were taken from public streets, the military may not have a legal right to request that videos be pulled." Currently, if you do a Google Maps search for the army base, there still remains a shot taken from the street view with full-zoom capabilities, despite the apparent risks it poses that terrorists will immediately come savaging the country.
Clearly, the fears of the post-9/11 days are creating a conflict of interest between protecting our national security and maintaining freedom on the net. On the one hand, we want to roam free, hold hands with unfamiliar avatars, and swap delicate stories with Web weirdos -- while on the other, we feel compelled to barricade ourselves into an underground tunnel with our mouths duck-taped, out of reach of the evil-doers floating around the tubes.
Recently Wired revealed that the Air Force placed a ban on blogs, saying they pose national security risks because troops feel compelled to respond to what they feel are harsh and/or inaccurate claims most often found on left-wing blogsites. According to Air Force officials, by doing so, troops are prone to giving away military secrets or sensitive information that could put their operations at risk.
Then there's the now well known WikiLeaks case. WikiLeaks, a Website that exposes "unethical behavior" of corporations and governments, was temporarily shut down as a result of a lawsuit, but it has since been revived. While it wasn't shut down for reasons of national security, some of the documents on WikiLeaks contain sensitive military materials, like rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq -- the kind of stuff the Pentagon types probably wouldn't want floating around the Web.
It seems as if the methodology here is to run around slapping black bars on random vulnerable spots while letting the rest thrive on the premise of freedom of speech. While it's a nice idea that Google removes some images that may or may not call attention to something that may or may not pose a risk, the Web is full of national security vulnerabilities. Devoting attention to policing a few of them, while leaving up sensitive photos, videos, documents, in the rest of the places, isn't going to put the brakes on terrorism. It can't be done in piecemeal fashion.
Authorities said the group settled on Fort Dix in part because one
defendant, Serdar Tatar, 23, had delivered pizzas to the base from his
family's nearby restaurant,...
Ha! I wasn't too far off, then.
As far as potential threat, I don't get the impression that those guys could have been able to do more harm than your average high school kid/college student/disgruntled employee, that you read about weekly. Just strange the latter only make a minor blip in national media when they do happen, while the former is labeled a 'national security threat', and even failed attempts like these are used to justify enormous amount of resources and controversial surveillance methods and interrogation techniques.
Bottom line is, if people really want to do harm, they will find a way, and in my opinion the best thing you can do as a nation to reduce terror threat is to stop giving people a reason. You don't get too many terrorists acting against, say, Iceland, just to name a random example, right?
And of course, stopping the sale of guns at Walmart might help too...
The US Military did not ban google maps. They merely asked nicely for google not to show street level photographs of their base.
While I agree that at some level this "banning" may be a good policy for basic security, it seems to fall under the omni present "National Security Blanket" that would make Linus from the Peanuts proud!
I do agree that a military base probably doesn't need to, want to, or have to show a street level map to anyone outside of their consent. But let's be honest. How many terrorists need google to accomplish their mission?
It does certainly raise a question about whom the government may consider hostile; anyone with an internet connection? I do realize it probably doesn't rise to that level at all within the national security agencies we are protected by in the US government. I personally am grateful for the effort being put forth to protect us in the spirit it is intended. I do however wonder how the google set top camera machinery was allowed in to a compound which should be protected in the first place.
It has been stated and probably echoed in these thinkerNet forums that once something is published on the internet, a retraction of that published material is likely a moot point as anyone with a screen capture tool can have it saved off locally.
I hope this type of banning doesn't start to stretch out to truly public places. It also raises the question, "Is the internet really a public place?"
I understand overhead satellite photos being a problem. However if the military has an issue with photographs being taken from public streets the problem isn't with the photographer, but the military themselves for allowing visual access to a secured area. They should send Google a thank you note for raising problems with their internal security.
I believe there was an attack planned, and thwarted, last year on Fort Dix in New Jersey. Which goes to your point that it's perhaps too hard -- but the plans were made and the want was there.
Nevertheless, with regard to the current national security flaws on the Web -- whether they are Google Maps images of military bases, or detailed images of infrastructure across the country, or sensitive military documents on WikiLeaks, etc., do you think it's then pointless to tackle these at all since, as you say, a "real" terrorist will find other ways?
Why would a terrorist on US soil want to target military bases? Way too hard a target. Typical mode of operation seems to be bombing public places where big crowds get together. Hard to keep all those off Google Maps.
Still, I bet a 'real' terrorist would have other ways to survey a military base, e.g. as a pizza boy, or as a contracter, or just by enlisting...
It is a nice step and when it is the question of national security it should be imposed with strictness.the law and order should be strict. And I wonder howcome the authorities say it a mistake. Do they have any idea the harm these types of mistakes are going to make? Other than privacy and security issues it is also violating the fundamental rights of others. Any how the national security is above all.
Excellent point!The ubiquitous
Internet continues to rapidly expand into an immeasurable state that it is
almost futile to attempt to police one location within it.The information that is being censored can potentially
regenerate in another area of the Internet.Obviously, any government would not like to see information pertaining
to their defense easily accessible from the Internet.However, as a society we need to realize that
the Internet sooner or later will capture information on a particular subject.The Internet is a stage for participants to easily
perform their show for a mass audience and for some that means presenting sensitive
information.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Ahh, the holiday season is upon us: People have begun bargain hunting, department stores are donning premature decorations, turkeys are being shot to death, and email inboxes everywhere are being graced with season-appropriate promotional materials so absurd, one might think they were actually written by the clinically insane.
Considering President Obama went and took the Nobel Peace Prize this year (attention hog, much?), Internet Evolution had to settle for a nomination for the second best prize in the world: a MIN Editorial & Design award. And we're happy to say that we won. Big time.
NEW YORK -- Web 2.0 Expo -- Here at the Javits Center in New York City, several industry innovators have come out to take the stage at the Web 2.0 Expo. But some are having a hard time keeping the audience's attention. The culprit? What else? Twitter.
The debate over whether Google is fairly aggregating newspaper content online has been going on for a while, with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. leading the discourse. Typically it's followed a consistent pattern: Murdoch complains about Google stealing its content to no real benefit to his company, someone suggests hiding the content from Google, and things get quiet on the News Corp. side of the room.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
