The latest kooky idea from California - lawmaker wants to blur Google Earth

NSX_Dreamer

NSX_Dreamer

Experienced Member
Joined
27 November 2002
Messages
536
Location
California
Another kooky idea from your favorite crappy place in America:

California lawmaker wants to blur Google Earth

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/11/google.earth.censor.california/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

OK, it's California. So we are quite used to the rest of the country rolling their eyes in knowing exasperation at our fads. But often, they turn out to be harbingers of national trends. And so the question: Will AB-255 (a bill that would "censor" some aspects of Google Earth) number among them as well?

Last month California Assemblyman Joel Anderson introduced a bill to limit the amount of detail someone could see on screen using online mapping tools. It also calls for fines of up to $250,000 per day for violating what Anderson describes "as the same level of protections that foreign governments extend to their own citizens."
Click to expand...
It's official, democracy and freedom of the public is dead in Kalifornia!! :rolleyes:
 
NSX_Dreamer said:
Another kooky idea from your favorite crappy place in America:

California lawmaker wants to blur Google Earth

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/11/google.earth.censor.california/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


It's official, democracy and freedom of the public is dead in Kalifornia!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
i haven't read the bill but did read the article.

what specifically do you think is wrong with not making available the intimate details of the facilities as noted in the article?

you are aware the idea of not exposing intimate details of specific facilities / personal details is not unique to california, right?
 
Last edited:
shouldn't these guys be fixing the multi billion dollar deficit? I guess that's farther down the list then forcing smaller TV's and blurring certain internet sites.
 
queenlives said:
i haven't read the bill but did read the article.

what specifically do you think is wrong with not making available the intimate details of the facilities as noted in the article?

you are aware the idea of not exposing intimate details of specific facilities / personal details is not unique to california, right?
Click to expand...

In Russia during the cold war they intentionally produced inaccurate maps, just in case the US / Nato forces decided to invade, they would be screwed by the signs.

We saw how well that worked out. Typical communist response to a theoretical threat.

The cure here is not blurring out public buildings, but making more fundamental security processes that secure the public against attacks.

Also, the Russians, Iran, and other countries have their own satellites in space, so blurring out commercial satellites is like plugging a leak in a boat that is sinking already.

This is a dumb knee-jerk move to try to address some theoretical attack that could be better managed with other measures at a fundamental level.

Also, there are detailed aerial surveys used by construction / property companies and public cities. Are those to be blurred out as well?

This is a bone-headed bill by a politician who seeks to make the move for political gain, at the expense of the public in general and the specific capitalistic companies who provide this service. Any attempt to suppress publicly available information in the name of "safety" brings chills to my spine.
 
sahtt said:
shouldn't these guys be fixing the multi billion dollar deficit? I guess that's farther down the list then forcing smaller TV's and blurring certain internet sites.
Click to expand...

or banning black paint on cars! :eek:

I wonder what next genious bill they'll come up with, while ignoring the melt down of the state that is in progress.
 
sahtt said:
shouldn't these guys be fixing the multi billion dollar deficit? I guess that's farther down the list then forcing smaller TV's and blurring certain internet sites.
Click to expand...
seems to me addressing public security issues (as perceived by some) and addressing (as perceived by some) the deficit aren't mutually exclusive issues.

of course, whether one approves of the measures / approach to these issues is a different matter.
 
queenlives said:
such as your home phone number, address, google-map photos of your home, etc.
Click to expand...

I suppress my own home phone number, address because of telemarketers /spammers, not because Bin Laden is going to knock on my door and threaten my family. :biggrin: If we had a good "whitelist" functionality of our phones, where we explicitly authorize only those we know to phone us, I'd be okay if my phone number was published on a billboard.

As far as google-map photos of my home, they exist, on Zillow and such, as well as the public assessor's office, I couldn't care less about that. I mean, am I worried some terrorist is going to zero in on my yard, and pick out a swing to attack? :wink:
 
Last edited:
So they want to blur all publicly owned structures, they should include all the houses that we are paying the mortgages for also as they are owned by the public now.
 
theman1990 said:
He wants to blur churches, public buildings, schools.... in short, ANYTHING that could be attacked by a terrorist... which is most anywhere there are people...
Click to expand...

Sooo, if you are a terroist, wouldnt you just aim your bombs at the blurry spots on the map?
 
Biscuit said:
Sooo, if you are a terroist, wouldnt you just aim your bombs at the blurry spots on the map?
Click to expand...

You just saved the Fedgov $10M on a study that would have been done to estimate where terrorists would attack if locations were blurred. :wink:
 
Back
Top