Posted on 03/12/2009 7:34:43 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Imagine if all the hospitals, schools, churches, and government buildings that appear on online maps were nothing but blurs.
That would not only reduce the usefulness of things like Google Maps and Google Earth, but it would be a huge undertaking for Google and would probably violate the First Amendment.
But that's exactly what California Assemblyman Joel Anderson, a Republican from El Cajon, is proposing in a measure dubbed "AB-255."
The measure would apply to Web site operators and online services that make "a virtual globe browser available to members of the public" and fails to define what that is. It also specifies that a violation would constitute a criminal offense with fines of up to $250,000 per day.
So, all the government agencies that use Google Earth and want the public to be able to find their buildings could conceivably be in violation as well.
As justification for the proposed censorship, Anderson is citing terrorism.
"We heard from terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks last year that they used Google Maps to select their targets and get knowledge about their targets. Hamas has said they were using Google Maps to target children's schools," Anderson told Computerworld. "What my bill does is limit the level of detail. It doesn't stop people from getting directions. We don't need to help bad people map their next target. What is the purpose of showing air ducts and elevator shafts? It does no good."
Google spokeswoman Elaine Filadelfo told Computerworld that the company hopes to talk to Anderson about the proposed legislation.
Privacy complaints have led Google to blur images of official buildings in several instances. The U.S. military banned Google from taking street view images from inside military bases and in 2007 India asked that certain government and military buildings be blurred.
The company also began blurring peoples' faces in its Street View interface on Google Maps last year in response to privacy concerns.
That's the excuse for everything along with the war on drugs, crime, public safety and protecting the environment.
Oh JHC....
Our lawmakers have gone insane..
>>As justification for the proposed censorship, Anderson is citing terrorism.
>That’s the excuse for everything along with the war on drugs, crime, public safety and protecting the environment
Don’t you mean the War on Public Safety, the Alliance with Crime (explain the corruption/bribery going on in DC...), and Destroying People’s Lives w/ Stupid Lunacy (”protecting the environment”)?
>Oh JHC....
>
>Our lawmakers have gone insane..
...you’re just figuring this out? [/cynic]
So a collection of aerial maps prepared by the USGS are illegal?
So we blur the targets we are afraid of being attacked so the terrorists know which ones to hit?
Rotsa ruck.
To prevent terror attacks?
"Uh, Achmed, where is the hospital we're supposed to blow up?"
"Oh, it's that blur just down the street from the Long John Silver's"
...and a republican thought of this?
Terrorists will be forced to rely on maps again. LOL
I LOVE Google Earth. It’s free so download it. You wont believe what it does for you. You can zoom around the world and view street photos from a moving cam van that took pictures 360 degrees, from links on the earth view.
So a collection of aerial maps prepared by the USGS are illegal?
not illegal but not readilty accessable
My visit to the Doll House that day was for sociological research purposes only.
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.”
—Old Jewish proverb
You can zoom around the world and view street photos from a moving cam van that took pictures 360 degrees, from links on the earth view.
and so can every robber, crazy, terrorist, murderer, and enemy.
Hell even India is launching a satelite program to take pictures and I think she's going to be selling them to Google if what I read is right.
No.. but they are proving it every day
The measure would apply to Web site operators and online services that make "a virtual globe browser available to members of the public" and fails to define what that is. It also specifies that a violation would constitute a criminal offense with fines of up to $250,000 per day.
A. Criminal offense of $250,000? Is this a felony?
B. How can you not define what the violation is? That's incompetence on the level of Obama.
C. Terrorism is the Republicans excuse for bad laws. It's like "the children" and "war on poverty" for democrats and the "war on drugs" for both parties.
He just doesn’t want his wife, constituents and law enforcement to see what he’s up to.
If you’re innocent you’ve got nothing to hide, right, congressman? That’s what we’ve been fed for years now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.