Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Calif. Politican Thinks Blurred Online Maps Would Deter Terrorists

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the fuzzy-logic-feels-warm-and-soft dept.

Security 597

Hugh Pickens writes "California Assemblyman Joel Anderson plans to introduce a bill to force Google Earth and similar services to blur images of so-called 'soft targets' like schools, hospitals, churches and government buildings to protect them from terrorists. 'All I'm trying to do is stop terrorists,' said Anderson. 'I don't want California to be helping map out future targets for terrorists.' Concerns that detailed satellite imagery and photographs available on Web services could help terrorists plan attacks are not new, with reports that terrorists have used such imagery to carry out attacks in Iraq and Israel, and an Indian court is considering a ban on Google Earth following reports that its imagery played a part in the Mumbai terrorist attacks.""Security expert Bruce Schneier recently wondered what other things legislators might consider banning to prevent terrorism: 'Bank robbers have long used cars and motorcycles as getaway vehicles, and horses before then. I haven't seen it talked about yet, but the Mumbai terrorists used boats as well. They also wore boots. They ate lunch at restaurants, drank bottled water and breathed the air,' wrote Schneier. 'Society survives all of this because the good uses of infrastructure far outweigh the bad uses, even though the good uses are — by and large — small and pedestrian and the bad uses are rare and spectacular.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I agree with Bruce (5, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069345)

Ban bottled water, that stuff's a killer!

Re:I agree with Bruce (4, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069605)

Ban bottled water, that stuff's a killer!

No, don't do that! The money they waste on bottled water is money they can't buy guns and bombs and shoes with!

Re:I agree with Bruce (5, Funny)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069673)

Boycott oxygen!

99% of all now-dead lifeforms on this planet consumed oxygen for the majority of their lifetime. It is clearly a toxic substance that must be controlled!

Why stop online? (5, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069353)

If we just blurred all maps, the terrorists couldn't even find their targets!

Re:Why stop online? (5, Insightful)

darkdaedra (1061330) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069473)

Agreed. Plus, GPS devices should be outlawed -- terrorists could use them to navigate in lieu of maps. Actually, history books, almanacs, encyclopedias, these all tell terrorists what we care about. Those should be outlawed too. Plus the internet, which allows them to communicate, and possibly phones, the mail system, UPS, FedEx and other courier services. Then maybe we can finally feel safe!

Re:Why stop online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069773)

Agreed. Plus, GPS devices should be outlawed -- terrorists could use them to navigate in lieu of maps.

Egypt is WAY ahead of Californa in this regard.

Re:Why stop online? (5, Funny)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069529)

If we just blurred all maps, the terrorists couldn't even find their targets!

You're thinking too small - if we blurred out our name whenever we talk to them - they wouldn't even know who to attack, let alone find them!

Re:Why stop online? (5, Funny)

Iamthefallen (523816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069601)

Silly, just blur the terrorist bases and let the problem solve itself.

Re:Why stop online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069617)

So what if we get rid of politicians (particularly the ones who call for censorship)? Would that help to stop terrorism?

on other news (3, Insightful)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069359)

Politicians have called for a ban on cars since they are used for bank robberies. They have also called for a ban on cellphones since terrorists have been using cellphones for communications. More at 11.

Re:on other news (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069441)

Politicians have called for a ban on cars since they are used for bank robberies.

Nobody's suggesting anything that extreme. We just want to blur all the windscreens so as to slow down any getaways. I suppose you'd rather have terrorists?

Yep. (5, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069363)

Terr'st1: "Are you ready to hit the school and strike a blow against the evil US?"
Terr'st2: "Yes! We must stand up against the Great Satan!"
Terr'st1: "Good! Grab the map."
Terr'st2: "It's... it's blurred! This cannot be!"
Terr'st1: "Curses! We are foiled."
Terr'st2: "You outsmarted us this time Great Satan! But we will be back."

Re:Yep. (3, Insightful)

n1hilist (997601) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069475)

or, "Well, let's blow everything up, one of these blurred out buildings *must* be the school!"

Re:Yep. (4, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069595)

That's the plan. Sure one of the nearby building must be the school but which one? I mean, schools are generally hard to pick out. It's not like they put signs on the road letting you know that you are near a school.

Re:Yep. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069531)

Then you get the "clever" ones:

Terr1: grab the map!
Terr2: Hey, WTF, its blurry!
Terr1: Ok. You, you, and ..you - take these crates to the blurred locations. We'll blurr them some more, this time in real life. Ha ha ha!
Terr2: You are SO evil, master.

Read: DUH! make it OBVIOUS what the targets are by blurring them. Only a Californian Cretin could come up with this.

Re:Yep. (5, Insightful)

g4pengts (1050568) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069541)

This is quite similar to this [xkcd.com] , replacing security with blurred map. Reality rarely works out the way people imagine.

Re:Yep. (4, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069689)

Or even better:
Terr'st1: Damn, India just banned Google Earth to prevent what were trying to do..
Terr'st2: And that affects us sitting here in Pakistan how?

Ban shoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069369)

I bet most of these "terrorists" wear shoes.

Re:Ban shoes (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069909)

I bet most of these "terrorists" wear shoes.

You don't have to *ban* them... but you better x-ray them all before you let anyone get on a plane wearing them.

Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick out. (5, Insightful)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069371)

Why in the world would you want to tell people, "These fuzzy-looking buildings are the ones we really care about the most. Targeting these would cause us the most grief"?

Either you want all the details fuzzed or none of them. The address of a building can be deduced pretty easily once you've pointed it out to them on the map. From there they can get public records of building plans or do their own surveillance planning. Why narrow the search to the most vulnerable or most valuable targets for them?

Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (4, Insightful)

sys_mast (452486) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069459)

Agreed, think of it this way.

"they" could look up the address in a phone book, we better make publishing the address of the schools (or other buildings) illegal.

Of course nobody will go to school since it's illegal to give out the address.

Somehow I'm thinking "they" were able to find targets before google maps existed.

Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (5, Insightful)

triffid_98 (899609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069875)

There's no need to go to that extreme, we can just blur the addresses out.

As others have mentioned, terrorism is the new bogeyman to

1. to keep people distracted from domestic issues
2. fund more military and/or homeland 'security' spending
3. justify more idiotic legislation like this one

I'm not afraid of Terrorists. I'm afraid of the idiots who believe that Terrorists are our biggest problem, thereby keeping these jackasses in power.

"they" could look up the address in a phone book, we better make publishing the address of the schools (or other buildings) illegal.

Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (4, Informative)

demonbug (309515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069635)

To be fair, the actual text [ca.gov] of the bill only requires the images to be blurred if the Operator already identifies the building. Specifically:

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.

Still pretty dumb, though.

Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069831)

Unconstitutional on it's face. CA cannot enforce its laws upon the rest of the US (or the world).

Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069727)

Exactly. Remember when MTV used to blur things out in all of their rap videos? It only made curious adolescents and teens even more determined to pirate the videos and see those middle fingers and weed leafs on the rappers' bling-bling.

On a more serious note, many here in Southern California actually take "terrorism" seriously because (1) there's a HUGE military presence and (2) people are believing the recent FUDstorm about Mexican drug violence spilling across the border.

Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (1)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069793)

Years and years ago, Dragon magazine had a cockpit-view from a fighter jet with a dragon flying head-on...

There was a tiny area in the instrumentation that was a blank square, that said in it, "Useless empty wasted space."

The artist, IIRC, said of course it wasn't, but was not allowed to paint that part. Don't remember how or why, but he'd gotten access to the real thing at some point, and used it as a model. A bunch of people noticed the label and called them on it. A plain blank panel would not have attracted nearly as much attention as doing something silly like "something important here! don't look! avert thine eyes!"

How, exactly, will painting a blurry bulls-eye make terrorrism harder? I think "well, my kids are coming here next year and it's all blurry on the map now" is a great excuse for a little in-person recon, too.

Maybe someone will market blurry expensive Gap Kids clothes to SAVE THE CHLIDREN!11!1!!! next :P

Blurry, FFS. BLURRY! I still can't wrap my head around it. Maybe the esteemed Congresstwit in question would care to suggest we all wear tinted spectacles of reddish hue next, to keep us all feeling safe.

bah.

Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069847)

Not only are the targets easy to pick out, they should be easy for a computer to pick out. A half way clever programmer will be able to create an automatically updating map of valuable targets.

Preemptive image manipulation (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069919)

Well, we just need something that stops the terrorists if they look at the picture.
Given the rampant homophobia in terroristic countries, one could just embed pictures of gay men into the pictures. As some kind of water mark. THAT would stop them for sure.
And even better, it's well known you get gay from looking at gay people, so the terrorists would get gay from searching their targets. And THAT would stop them, or did you ever hear of sponteaously combusting gay terrorists ? I don't think so. Gay man are much to faggy to terrorize anyone (besides the vendor in the curtain store for not having the right brand of pink curtains).
And even if they blow themselves up, they'll get 99 female virgins in afterlife and then WHAT? HAHA we got you Mr. Terrorist.

Re:Blurring only targets makes them easy to pick o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069929)

Fuzz everything. All you really need are the roads. I don't understand what value hi-res images have in the first place, other than being a curiosity.

Take proactive measures! (1)

esobofh (138133) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069375)

I've started peeing on all my paper maps to avoid supporting any terrorists.. ! read that al habib.. i've had a lot of coffee this morning!!

So then they bomb where the blurred out areas are (0, Redundant)

kkrajewski (1459331) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069381)

*yawn*

blur California Assemblyman Joel Anderson's name (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069387)

Everyone should blur Anderson's name in all publications and documents to make sure he is safe from terrorists.

Re:blur California Assemblyman Joel Anderson's nam (5, Insightful)

Lord Fury (977501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069545)

If he really cares about California he should blur his name on the next election ballot.

Re:blur California Assemblyman Joel Anderson's nam (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069843)

Well, it looks like his mind is blurred already.

Welcome to California!!! (1, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069397)

Yeah, we know how to pick our politicians here in California. The total IQ of our state legislature is about 3. Dumbest asses ever. All of them. Republicans. Democrats. Whatever. I think Sacramento has something in the water.

Re:Welcome to California!!! (5, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069437)

I think Sacramento has something in the water.

Must have been those damn terrorists!

Re:Welcome to California!!! (1)

Camann (1486759) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069663)

Then we'll just have to go after the people responsible [ewg.org] !

Now, to stop corrupt politicians! (5, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069407)

The guy is brilliant. We need only follow his example to rid us of another pesky problem -- one that has afflicted our country several times since 9/11. Corrupt politicians.

It is a proven fact that politicians are corrupted by money. Absolutely proven!

Therefore, we should immediately ban all political contributions. Not just by fat cats, but ALL political contributions. Oh, and none of this "I'll use my own money" -- we must also ban all political expenditures as well. No campaign ads, no flyers, no paid push pollers.

Actually, that sounds like a great idea... I'm starting to believe my own sarcasm. How sad is that?

Cough Up Some Hard Evidence, Buddy (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069411)

All I'm trying to do is stop terrorists ...

And all I'm asking you to do is show me the increase in terrorist attacks since Online Maps have become available ... or really anything at all backing the idea that blurring online maps will "stop terrorists."

I know I'd give it up right away if I was set on killing all Americans and when I got onto Google maps the local Wal-Mart was blurred out. There would be no other way to figure out its location or the lay of the land around it. None, I would be thwarted.

Re:Cough Up Some Hard Evidence, Buddy (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069501)

That's a dangerous road to walk down skippy. See, you're asking for correlation to imply/not imply causation, which it just can't do. On top of that, online maps became prevalent around the same time as modern message boards, social networking sites, etc. Considering online mediums are a massive source of recruitment for any terrorist group, your evidence would most likely be there. More recruits means more chances to attack.

Re:Cough Up Some Hard Evidence, Buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069559)

That's a dangerous road to walk down skippy. See, you're asking for correlation to imply/not imply causation, which it just can't do. On top of that, online maps became prevalent around the same time as modern message boards, social networking sites, etc. Considering online mediums are a massive source of recruitment for any terrorist group, your evidence would most likely be there. More recruits means more chances to attack.

I think his point was that the politician can't even provide a correlation--even if he wanted to pin it on online maps, there's nothing to pin on them.

Re:Cough Up Some Hard Evidence, Buddy (1)

the4thdimension (1151939) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069523)

Even if they had evidence, how does one determine which are blurred and which stay unblurred? Schools might be blurred, but then I value my life, so maybe they should blur my companies building. I also value my life when I am at home, so maybe they should blur that to. Oooo, also, I am sure most of the people I know value their lives so we should blur their homes and businesses to... just in case.

I can't wait to see what kinda slippery slope we are getting into.

Re:Cough Up Some Hard Evidence, Buddy (1)

ptomblin (1378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069639)

As an American (I assume) you *must* know that there were absolutely no terrorist attacks in the world before Google Maps came along. Not one.

Re:Cough Up Some Hard Evidence, Buddy (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069733)

And all I'm asking you to do is show me the increase in terrorist attacks since Online Maps have become available

We had one terrorist attack on US soil so far this century that cost almost 3,000 lives. Meanwhile, 45,000 die violently on US highways every single year, and another half million die horribly from cancer.

Our politicians are not only gutless cowards, but they're STUPID gutless cowards with no sense of proportion whatever.

Cloaking Shields (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069413)

It's pointless unless they can blur the buildings in real life too.

But if they could do that... well, that'd be pretty sweet.

Private Jones: "Sir, incoming terrorists!"
Commander Smith: "Activate cloaking shields! Deploy decoy buildings!"

churches? (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069425)

huh? you mean the supposed virtual-landlord of those churches isn't powerful enough to protect his own property?

why not pray for protection? REALLY test your faith - put it on the line and see where it gets you. if your churches suffer from terror targets, well, its the will of god and who's to argue with that? ;)

Re:churches? (1)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069599)

That's always the first logical answer - but you have to take it into their closed-loop to realize how it works.

You see, when stuff we like happens, that proves that all is the will of god. But when bad stuff happens, that proves that we didn't have enough faith!

Lightning rods on steeples (2, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069671)

Each time I see a steeple with a lightning rod, I wonder about substantial lack of faith on the part of the congregation.

Re:Lightning rods on steeples (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069757)

Interestingly, I understand that some sects, such as the Amish, do not put lightning rods up, for precisely that reason.

Priorities (5, Insightful)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069429)

Isn't California running out of money, spare electricity capacity and (most importantly) fresh water? In terms of imminent threats, I'm surprised terrorism is even on the horizon.

Taxes (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069485)

Terrorism is todays excuse to raise taxes. ( for the kids was the 90s ) Not surprising at all that they are doing this.

Re:Priorities (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069487)

Pointing to outside threats is an ages-old tactic to distract people from inside threats.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069577)

Pointing to imaginary threats is an ages-old tactic to distract people from real threats that the pointer's master would rather people not notice quite yet.

Re:Priorities (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069765)

Yes, and Terrorism is such a bad thing that one can justify,"Well if they can bomb us, we can spend as much as the damage the nuke would do in prevention." And the scary/weird thing is that logic isn't entirely incorrect. As bad of a rep that Bush got, we didn't get hit again on US soil during his term. So all that prevention money may have done its job, but there is no way to ever know.

I personally don't like overspending to protect us from terrorism, I'd rather invest in infrastructure and the economy. Here is my logic: If we get hit, we can rebuild. The loss is measured in human lives. If we don't get hit, we're in a much better place in terms of humanity. I guess it depends if you're an optimist or a pessimist.

Re:Priorities (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069801)

Pointing to outside threats is an ages-old tactic to distract people from inside threats.

Pointing is rude.
My third grade teacher said so. :p

Re:Priorities (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069543)

In fact, a really good terrorist attack would cut down on the demand for water and electricity, and make things much better for the remaining Californians! Are you listening, Al Qaeda? Attacking California could only make the situation there better, not worse!

Re:Priorities (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069547)

We had a state politician submit a bill that government buildings should be built and decorated according the fung shui.

A Democrat this time. Here's the actual bill.

http://www.fengshui88.be/docs/fs_bsc%202.doc [fengshui88.be]

NYT article

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E6DA1138F933A05752C0A9629C8B63 [nytimes.com]

Ah, for the days when we were only $14 billion in debt...

Re:Priorities (1)

slifox (605302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069851)

You'd be surprised by the ridiculous amount of pointless bills that are submitted in the House in the Senate.

I only just looked into it recently, and I was shocked! I'd love to see some real statistics, but probably a large percentage of all bills are things like:
  "recognize So-and-So for their great contributions to This-and-That,"
  "recognize Sponsor's-Home-Sports-Team for their great season,"
  "rename building XYZ to So-and-So Memorial XYZ"

So I ask: WHY?
What the hell are we paying for?
Don't we have more SERIOUS problems now?

If legislation related to essential issues (e.g. financial crisis, energy crisis, education almost-crisis, etc) isn't being agreed upon, then they better keep talking about it until they figure it out! And until that point, I don't want to see any more pointless, frivolous bills.

Check it out: go to the Library of Congress site and search for bills sponsored (not necessarily co-sponsored, though) by a senator or congressman*
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html [loc.gov]

* the 'man' in 'congressman' refers to 'human' -- its definitely not 'congressperson'

Re:Priorities (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069629)

You must have missed the point last week where Congress was flipping out about primates being kept as pets. Obviously there isn't anything all that important going on in the world.

Sorry! (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069431)

I (or Google) have a right to take a picture from my property, or any publicly accessible land and post it online. It might help terrorists, but this is the price of living in a free country. Obviously, if there are dozens of terrorist attacks per year, we might declare martial law and the country will not be free anymore, at least until the war is over. But I don't see any justification to live in fear and repression based on a single attack 7 years ago, and when we have successfully toppled the government that sponsored the terrorist plot in question.

Re:Sorry! (1)

catalina (213767) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069873)

"...and when we have successfully toppled the government that sponsored the terrorist plot in question."

Scuse me? To which government are you referring?
Iraq didn't sponsor, and the Taliban seems to be in resurgence.....

Re:Sorry! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069911)

You better not be talking about Iraq.

Doesn't this make terrorists job easier. (1, Flamebait)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069457)

"Hmm... it's blurred on Google Earth... it MUST be a good target!" But seriously, if you can tell from Google Earth what the target is, then you already know enough about it to be able to determine whether or not it would make a good target.

And while we're at it, statistics show that 98% of all rapes are performed with a penis, so merely by eliminating penises, we can eliminate 98% of rapes! Ban them immediately! Think of the children, women, and particularly wimpy men! Take away these "assault penises", the weapon of choice of rapists everywhere! And especially the sawed-off versions, which are easily concealed in one's clothing! Sorry, I got a little carried away there...

Re:Doesn't this make terrorists job easier. (1)

Phoenixhawk (1188721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069935)

"Hmm... it's blurred on Google Earth... it MUST be a good target!"
But seriously, if you can tell from Google Earth what the target is, then you already know enough about it to be able to determine whether or not it would make a good target.

And while we're at it, statistics show that 98% of all rapes are performed with a penis, so merely by eliminating penises, we can eliminate 98% of rapes! Ban them immediately! Think of the children, women, and particularly wimpy men! Take away these "assault penises", the weapon of choice of rapists everywhere! And especially the sawed-off versions, which are easily concealed in one's clothing! Sorry, I got a little carried away there...

Why Yes, Ma'am in fact I do Have a permit for this here weapon....

Blur everything (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069463)

Why not, we don't need to know how to get around town do we? Oh, and no one owns paper maps.

Idiot.

Re:Blur everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069857)

Oh, and no one owns paper maps.

Just make another law requiring that people shake their maps while reading them to make them appear blurry.

See? Every problem has a solution.

Great Idea (0, Redundant)

kwiqsilver (585008) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069465)

While were at it, lets ban airplanes because terrorists have used them before...and cell phones...terrorists love cell phones...ooh! and encryption.

Sure all of these technologies are used for millions of benign or helpful reasons for every malignant use, but banning things is so much easier, and more fun!

Also, it will help spur the economy, because the would be terrorists will have to buy cameras to take pictures of their targets.

Uh huh.... (1)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069471)

And what part of this scheme won't just encourage terrorists to find weapons with a bigger blast radius so they just cover the entire blurred area 'just to make sure'?

Where Are They? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069495)

I always hear about the government(and people in general) saying how they'll strip away our rights and freedoms to protect us from terrorists.

So, where are these terrorists? Besides lurking in the shadows of our minds, I mean.

Re:Where Are They? (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069743)

So, where are these terrorists?

Political office.

He us right but.... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069521)

All the online imagery and street view are extremely valuable for terrorist attacks. There are any number of technology that makes terrorist attacks easier. Computers, the internet, cell phones, and goodness knows what else.
But in an open society like the US digital imagery isn't all that needed. Get a phone book to get a school address. Or the Schools web site.
Go to that town and drive by and click pictures with a cell phone if you want. Odds are nobody will even notice.
Pay as you go Cell phones that you by at Walmart seem more dangerous then imagery.
Make great remote hard to trace detonators.

Are we protecting them from missiles? (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069533)

As far as I know public schools are freely accessible after hours, government buildings offer fairly unrestricted access (obvious exceptions), churches are open to everyone as one of their founding tenets, and I can't think of any of these places that you would not be able to get a better survey of from the street... so I really wonder what is being protected.

Will we also impose these limitations on city-scape photography taken from terrace apartments?

I've got a better idea (5, Insightful)

cat_jesus (525334) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069537)

Why don't we just ban terrorism instead?

decaying orbit (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069557)

it's like the USA has been in some kind decaying orbit for the last decade. just when you think the sepo's can't get worse they drop another notch.

I look Muslim (1)

snsh (968808) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069561)

Great, now TSA will require me to boot my laptop and prove I do not possess blurry photographs on my computer.

okay, fine, turn it around on dude... (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069567)

Northern Virginia man thinks California politician should worry about more important things in their state instead of whether or not a line is blurred on a map.

Things like the ridiculous budget deficit. Or the quagmire that is illegal immigration...etc, etc.

Sure, blur a line on a map, but why not fix the things that are more important?

Re:okay, fine, turn it around on dude... (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069933)

. Or the quagmire that is illegal immigration...etc, etc.

Except that the CA State Assembly should *NOT* be worrying about said quagmire, it's a Federal matter.

Help Google Identify the Targets (5, Funny)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069579)

So that California doesn't have to update Google whenever soft targets change, I propose that California paint the roofs of sensitive locations fluorescent orange, then add satellite-visible concentric black circles to clearly indicate to Google that the building is a target.

California could also inform Google of the site's importance, by painting a large black number representing a score from 1-10.

Then, just in case the terrorists still find the place, outside the site we should post a large warning sign saying "Terrorism Prohibited at this Site."

Dumb idea (2, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069593)

So now when terrorists look at a map they can more easily identify potential targets because they are blurry.

Now we know why the Borings are so upset (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069609)

Google Street View has made their property a much more attractive target to terrorists! "Look Omar, we can easily cause maximum damage by lighting fire to this pile of discarded lumber next to the garage!"

When maps are outlawed (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069645)

... only outlaws will have maps. Yeah, I know -- but someone was going to.

California has had how many terrorist attacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069693)

Seriously we've had a total of one terrorist attack in the mainland US, I'd rather see the effort spent to stop traffic accidents.

Revisit other legislation (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069695)

If they want everything blurred, why did they outlaw dope?

Sounds like BS (1)

Magee101 (1492127) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069701)

To me it sounds more like they just don't want sophisticated technology easily viewed by anyone, terrorists are just an easy blame and the Sheeple of America will easily agree if it's to "ward off terrorist attacks". To me it just sounds like a beuacratic push to dampen what normal people can access

Inaccurate street maps would deter terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069705)

Rand-McNally & other map makers should also be force randomly drop & add streets, and move the remaining streets around because terrorists use maps to assist them plan and execute there acts.

Ranks right up there with banning pants, because some gang members wear them.

They already do this. (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069899)

However this is to help them enforce copyright issues (add a small dead end street at the end of a small dead end street and call it McRand St, for example).

Terrorist workaround... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069707)

...all blurred areas are targets.

(Not all terrorists are stupid, unlike (apparently) Assemblymen.)

Forbid books as well! (2, Insightful)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069713)

And the CIA world factbook, and the US constitution while we are at it.

Also, the bible seems to stir up the terrorists pretty much, lets forbid it too!

Hey, also, the TV series "24" should be marked as munnition with export controls so that the terrorists cannot prepare themselves to what a CIA operative does!

Shall we go on?

The Golden Duh! Award (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069759)

A perfect candidate for the first annual award ceremony.

Terrorists don't bomb maps, they bomb people, places and things. If the general population can find the place despite blurring so can the terrorists. If one can't, the latter can't, and nobody can use it.

This is far too st00pid be be based on the stated intent. He's grandstanding for PR.

Take a lesson from the cold war (1)

ZirbMonkey (999495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069769)

If you worry about overhead spy photos being taken of something, don't build it to look like a target.

If you want the overhead google map picture of something to look blurry, build it so the overhead view of it looks blurry.

___

"I think Bigfoot is blurry, thatâ(TM)s the problem. Itâ(TM)s not the photographerâ(TM)s fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And thatâ(TM)s extra scary to me, because thereâ(TM)s a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. Heâ(TM)s fuzzy. Get outta here." ~Mitch Hedberg

Because of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069787)

Security through obscurity is the perfect foil!

Nobody ever accomplished any military or terrorist objective until Google Earth existed!

Yes... (1)

malv (882285) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069839)

That's right. When you reach the blur take a left turn. Keep going until you reach the next blur. You should see a blur to your right. Take the blur to the next blur until you reach the blur.

Party affiliation (1)

mcoon (648300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069861)

Are there any cases of Democrats making such demands?

Remove All Street Signs (1)

skgstyle (625779) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069869)

If he can get all the street signs and address numbers removed too then the terrorists won't be able to find anything

Let's go one further (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069877)

Even with blurred images, you have a good idea of where it is, even get GPS coordinates. Lets alter the maps and GPS database to place schools somewhere safer, where society can deal with unexpected loss of life. State politician's homes perhaps?

At least blur them during school days (5, Funny)

janwedekind (778872) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069891)

Reminds me of a German politician who suggested an innovative solution against kids browsing porn: Porn sites must be offline until 10 pm!

Premptive strike against terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27069893)

Destroy all schools, hospitals, churches, and government buildings. Then there will be NOTHING for terrorists to attack, therefore eliminating terrorism FOREVER.

What politians think is not the problem. (2, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069901)

It's the fact they always seem to say everything they think.

Ridiculuous (1)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069917)


I won't even rant on about how one could purchase maps at the corner store. The funnier response would be terrorists would just attack blurry images..

Aim for the middle of all blurs (1)

pestilence669 (823950) | more than 5 years ago | (#27069931)

So, visually tagging all "sensitive" locations will keep us safe? It won't just tell our enemies exactly what to hit? What about maps at gas stations? The White Pages & Yellow Pages? 411? Google itself? *sigh*
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?