You know that GOOGLE EARTH thing where anybody can zoom in and see a building or large area up close? It turns out we're learning that islamists terrorists might have used Google Earth to plot the Mumbai Hotel attacks.I just heard that a California politician is proposing a bill mandating that Google will have to BLUR large details of venues like stadiums, churches, malls, etc....large gathering places. Apparently, it's not difficult to see the 'blueprints' and figure out how large doorways are, how far it is to the parking lots, how many people can fit through a gateway in any given amount of time, etc.
Seems like a good idea to me. Will the Left block this because it's CENSORING INFORMATION? Or "They can find this information out, anyway, this smacks of FASCISM!!?" In a world where we're getting very little truth about, for instance, the fact that Israel was hit 120 times by rockets since the 'ceasefire' and Yahoo DID NOT MENTION THAT until Israel hit back and injured 4 people yesterday.....will people scream "FOUL" at the Californians plan while dishonesty by the media (again), as in the Israel case, is ignored or not quite understood? What do you think? We can BLOCK information the media DOESN't want us to know...will it fight BLOCKING information terrorists might not have such easy access to?
You think Obama-loving Google will fight? Will the Left be real unhappy about this?
z
19 comments:
It's very tough call. I don't want to be limited by the goverenment, and I think it's way cool to see a stadium or other landmark on Google Earth... but I give up some personal freedom every time I take my shoes off at the airport. *sigh* Things just aren't going to be the same, are they?
I really like your blog!!!
www.freedoms-fight.blogspot.com
It turns out we're learning that Islamists terrorists might have used Google Earth to plot the Mumbai Hotel attacks.
------------------------
Yeah, and they MIGHT have been secret members of the Illuminati.
It's the easiest way to see some things but block it and they will find another.
David, I know what you mean....but, I guess giving up a little like seeing the details of a school from space, or taking shoes off (I HATE THAT!) is a small price to pay.
Thanks, Pistolmom (can I insert PACKIN' into your screen name?) I'm coming by to visit your blog..!
Ducky, please. The experts say it DID HAPPEN. Sorry I wasn't more careful for you. THEY USED GOOGLE, okay? Thanks.
But, better to err on THEIR side, I know, Ducky..I know.
Shoprat...The thing is that we need to be as clever as they are..or try to be. There's evidence they adjust their tactics when we blow our cover; let's not make it as easy as we have.
The problem is at what point do you draw the line? Blur images at Google Earth today, control individual movement tomorrow . . . it is a very slippery slope, my friend. It follows the idea that if you limit gun control, we can all live happily ever after. In actuality, gun restriction simply means that only bad people have guns. We have already developed a society such as presented by George Orwell in his book “1984”; there is nowhere you can go inside the city of London without being on camera. New York is presently developing that kind of big brother eye in the sky.
I agree with Shop rat; it is difficult to discourage a determined extremist. I prefer a society in which we presume good faith and innocence among the citizenry. The occasional death or injury of innocents is our cost for liberty and freedom from an oppressive government. If we make the opposite decision, then we have adopted the kind of government advocated by the extremists themselves.
As long as there are terrorists who seek to kill huge numbers of people, we have to take these kinds of measures.
This bill doesn't propose to be invasive, nor does it inhibit us in our daily lives.
In fact, the day will probably come when gps technology may be used to invade our privacy or track our movements. That's when our freedoms will be more at risk.
Pris
I can see the ACLU having a quagmire with this issue. I would think they would HAVE to argue "FREE SPEECH" and fight against stifling Google Earth, and any other satelite type imaging service. Besides, if Google did blur that type of picture out, whats to stop the ragheads from running their own service?
OH, oh my goodness, did I say "ragheads" out loud? Shame on me!
Mustang and Pris....
Yes, Conservatives will fight this, too..we're obviously about freedom more than the lefty media is, but..if 9/11 could have been prevented...then what? I understand the slippery slope but I'm thinking this Google thing doesn't take much from our freedoms.
Mustang, you said "I prefer a society in which we presume good faith and innocence among the citizenry." I know. I agree.
Can we presume good faith and innocence from terrorists overseas OR here? This is a very tough question, this BILL and what it could do....and what it could prevent must be acknowledged. Again, erring on our side...or at least doing all we can to?
Your point is a good one, Z. Notwithstanding the fact that we do have a domestic variety of nuts in this country, I much prefer that our government do a better job restricting immigration than they have in the past. Citizens of other nations, particularly those with a history of Wahabbism or a stated intention to do harm to Americans, do not have a right to enter this country. In my view, that is where our concerns should lie.
I'm perfectly willing to give up some things if it means keeping our country safe, Z, but we know the left isn't. Many of them don't even recognize that terrorism exists! La La land is a dangerous place to live in.
Mustang: For the sake of erring in OUR defense, I'd get rid of every person our gov't had the slightest reason to fear......even this government which doesn't seem to give a rat's poop.
Gayle, GREAT to see you blogging again! I was worried you were unwell...glad it was "just" computer problems.!! xx
Ducky feels only Republicans think there's a threat of terror.....
sort of like Obama. STupid, but true; you are RIGHT!
Z, perhaps I wasn't clear. I support this bill, and I agree with you. We're at war.
I really don't see how blurring the satellite view of a large building impinges on our rights.
The argument against it is like saying, if you have a telescope you should be free to watch your neighbor inside his house because you can.
Pris
Pris..gotcha!! I KNOW it's a slippery slope but what rights are taken away by this?
BUT.......let's see if this flies.!!
I feel like we're always one step behind the bad guys...learning their tricks only after they use 'em. I hope I'm wrong about that. However, I don't think taking away small "freedoms" like Google earth is the way to defeat terrorism. It might slow them down some, but they'll figure something else out.
Can't stop "progress."
I was searching through playlist.com looking for a song and found it.
One minute into the song, the volume of the song drops into the background and a woman's voice comes on, speaking in Arabic for around two minutes. Crazy hidden message stuff.
Tracing the file to its host site revealed an Arabic website with jihadist literature.
I don't know what disturbs me more... that jihadis like the same music I do, or that this method of message transmission hasn't been detected by people in charge of looking for stuff like that.
I think a better idea would be to blur/take out the identifiers of homeland security offices. Such as the FBI and CIA.
I know from experience they are extremely easy to find.
not good...
"They" can already track little old us , with gps and cell phones, my friends.
Blurring an image is not a bad idea , I do not know as it actually hurts us , civil rights wise.
I do have concerns about such issues.
But my new president is now suggesting we all reach out to moderate Taliban members .
He sees that as a new strategy in the War on Terror.
Or is there a War on Terror?
WVDOTTR
Post a Comment