Google Earth Hurts American Forces in Iraq?
This morning on the front page of the Kuwait Times is a story about American forces in Iraq finding GoogleEarth print outs of American bases and strongholds, so clear that those targeting these sites can see the difference between tents and barracks, and can get the exact longitude and latitude for targeting purposes.
Information is always a double edged sword. Information is information, in and of itself, it is neutral. How information is used makes it useful or harmful. And “useful” or “harmful” depends totally on where you stand.
So what do you think? Do you try to censor GoogleEarth when it hurts your side, and oppose censorship when it works to your advantage? Or do you say “hands off” and let the information serve all people equally?
9 Comments »
Leave a reply to Don Veto Cancel reply
Recent Comments
Catherine on Donna Leon Crossing Cultu… intlxpatr on Ignoring the Law thani on Ignoring the Law Anon. on British Soldier Kidnapped, Esc… Reeva Mills on Cahors to Bordeaux, Preparing… Wikipedia Donate Button
Amazina
Early Voting in Florida
Here There and Everywhere 
ofcourse censor it when it hurts ur side.
google earth is sort of censored. There are some army bases that I know of and in google earth the resolution is reduced or blurred. There are alo changes that I have done to my house around 5 months ago and it is still not showing in Google Earth, so the images are not as recent as one would like them to be.
I don’t see any benefits coming from Google earth; if there is any that I don’t know about, please enlighten me!
Fonz – I’m not sure I agree . . .sharing is sharing . . .
Don Veto – I thought so too, but on my recent trip back, I discussed it with my nephew who works at GE, and he says no. I showed him a blurry spot near where I live and he said they just didn’t have upgraded resolution yet. They purchase updated areas (you can see “seamlines” if you look closely) but not all at once . . .
Faith – Google Earth is mostly for Geography Geeks, (and Geography relates closely to politics.) It’s the Wikipedia of the geography world, with people all over the world contributing information, illustrative photos, recommendations – it is useful if you know how to use it. I even use it driving around Kuwait, before I go . . . I relate better to landmarks than to maps, and use GE to re-inforce what I get from the map. It shows you were something you need to know is, and it shows you things you didn’t even know you wanted to know! I can spend hours with GE, sigh!
All – But if you censor, what do you censor? And who chooses?
hopefull that the war stops and everyone would go back to their loved ones.
Current situation doesnt look very promising, sorry to say
I am totally against censorship on Google Earth. Our country was founded on principles of free, capitalist enterprise. I can understand, vaguely, that the US might forbid Google Earth (as an American company) from showing hi-res photos of US military sites, but the idea of blurring “friendly” nations’ sites is horrifying. I can’t stand that GE is forced to blur Israel, for example – and the idea of extending this requirement to the constantly changing array of US allies (so that today Libya’s military installations would be blurred, but not France’s, for example – which situation five years ago would have been reversed) is not only (to me) deeply anti-American but also totally asinine.
In our world today, we have the technology to make the face of the earth totally transparent. Governments, militaries, and anyone else with an interest in secrecy should recognize this and build accordingly – not retard our technological advances for reasons of state.
For me, it is a little like CNN – unless the truth is told objectively, across the board, including our own nation on the same scale with others, then the news becomes slanted, and slanting is a form of lying. Blurring some areas and not others is succumbing to political pressures . . . and it takes away the level playing field, i.e. the transparency we all claim to be seeking.
This is a story that came about only because of the name Google. The truth is, the imagery is claimed to be several years old, and the terrorists could get much more recent imagery from Google’s data provider.
Ogle Earth Blog has a very well written piece on how easy it is to get. http://www.ogleearth.com/
If Google didn’t display this data, do you think the terrorists would be too cheap to spend $105 for more recent and more accurate imagery straight from the satellite company? If DG was then forced to censor their imagery, some other foreign satellite service, not under the jurisdiction of the US, would simply pick up the slack. I hate phrases like this, but the genie is already out of the bottle.
Good Morning, Earthling! I was hoping you would check in and give us your input. Who would know better than you?
And I agree with you, in this brave new world, information is king, and it’s very difficult to believe in conspiracies when so many people can broadcast what they see happening, and we have eyes in the sky to verify.
Thanks for your perspective. π