backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by DRMichael.. on Mar 11 at 11:52 PM


Google Earth Street View Image of Fort Sam Houston before it was Removed  (Source: BBC News)
Pentagon bans Google from taking images and video of military installations

Services like Google Earth are viewed by many to be nothing more than an interesting curiosity.  However, for the U.S. military and other world governments the satellite images and other footage Google offers on its Earth service represents a big security risk.

BBC News reports that the Pentagon has banned Google from filming inside and making detailed studies of U.S. military bases. The ban comes after detailed footage from inside and outside of the U.S. military base at Fort Sam Houston in Texas turned on up Google Earth’s Street View service.

Street View is a service of Google Earth that allows users of the application to travel down streets from the perspective of a car driver. The problem the Pentagon had with these images was that they were shot with great detail and were found to represent a significant security risk.

The defense department said in a statement quoted by BBC News, “Images include 360-degree views of the covered area to include access control points, barriers, headquarters, facilities and community areas.” The fear is that terrorists could use the detailed images to develop plans to attack the base.

Larry Yu, a Google spokesman, told BBC News that the decision to enter the US military base had been a “mistake.” Yu further said, “[it is] not our policy to request access to military installations, but in this instance the operator of the vehicle with the camera on top - which is how we go about capturing imagery for Street-View - requested permission to access a military installation, was given access, and after learning of the incident we quickly removed the imagery".

The U.S. military isn’t the only military force that has had problems with images shown on Google Earth. DailyTech reported in July of 2007 that satellite imagery form Google Earth had shown a new Chinese ballistic missile sub in dock. Indian officials became irate when images of its new Sukhoi 30 MK1 aircraft turned up on Google Earth as well.

A U.S. spy agency stated in May of 2007 that curbs needed to be placed on satellite images made available to the public.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The way it should be
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 1:28:19 PM , Rating: 4
I think this is common sense.

There are parts of army bases that US civilians are not allowed in for a reason. The fact that a corporation has the ability to take a satellite picture does give it a justifiable reason to do so. Especially considering the rest of the world who has internet access could also be viewing those pictures for military strategy or terrorist planning.




RE: The way it should be
By mmntech on 3/7/2008 1:38:19 PM , Rating: 5
Aside from the fact that the 9/11 conspirators were relative nobodies who got into the US and obtained plenty of data on strategic targets. In other words, you don't need the internet when good old fashion spying will do just as good. Plus, all this info is already out in the wild. If Bin Laden wants it, he probably already has it. This seems like another case of pointless censorship to me, which the US seems to have a big problem with lately. Feel free to disagree. That's just my $0.02.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: The way it should be
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 4:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
Lets see.......someone who actually believes that list of Rosie ODonnell garbage about GWB plotting the attack on our own landmarks wants to try and persuade me on who is and is not a good president and what we should do for the upcoming election.

Haha. And I almost though the idiots on Judge Mathis were the most ridiculous thing ive seen yet today.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: The way it should be
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 5:21:09 PM , Rating: 5
Geez, I would say you drank too much Kool-Aid....but it was obviously something far worse.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/8/2008 4:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it wasn't kool-aid it was a truth serum - sodium pentothal! It came down the wire while I accidentally switched channels and tuned into Fox News!


RE: The way it should be
By mufdvr3669 on 3/9/2008 3:55:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
6. Most of the FBI’s named list of pilots of those planes that crashed into the twin towers are still working to this day!!! (fact)


John Ogonowski - Dead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ogonowski

Thomas McGuinness - Dead

Charles Burlingame - Dead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Burlingame

David M. Charlebois - Dead

Michael R. Horrocks - Dead

Victor Saracini - Dead

You are completely wrong and full of sh@%. Where are your facts when you come up with your BS. I have lists of overs 100 dead people on those planes willing to bet against your stupid conspiracy theories.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/9/2008 9:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
I should have said 'hijackers' NOT pilots! (those poor bastards were probably murdered by the feds...)

Please feel free to do you own research, of course, but in the meantime: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html


RE: The way it should be
By DRMichael on 3/11/2008 11:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
Stop, please...a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Go to college, graduate, get a job.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/9/2008 10:12:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think you should watch this video, Mr. Witty-Ass. It’s a Republican telling you some home truths that you’re not really going to like (or probably even look into because of your ‘blinkered’ and retentive outlook on life)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ixuf236Dk

Now, if the rest of you 'suckers' are SO brain washed that you cannot possibly bring yourselves to doubt what is truly a dreadful tragedy that happened on our own soil and is now affecting the rest of the world, then there really is absolutely no hope for us.

And the crazy thing is: the rest of the world is watching us like a hawk….


RE: The way it should be
By rcc on 3/7/2008 5:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
Goodness, that's a fine case of sphincter lock you have there. I'm guessing you just assume that anyone that spouts off something contrary to public knowledge must be right?

I'm not going to dive into that whole sordid mess, but I do have a couple of comments.

3. If you think Pearl Harbor was a lie, you should visit the Arizona memorial sometime. If you are talking about all the "secrets of Pearl Harbor" shows created to make money, consider the sources.

5. Unlike you, I don't claim to know 50% of the population, but in the slice of it that I do know, not one person believes that "the US did it". Then again I try to hang out with productive working people.

I'm not saying the US is pristine, blah, blah, blah. But of the countries I've been in, and it's quite a few now, it's really the only one I'd care to live in. Well, if certain things happen in our government I might consider Australia or New Zealand. : )


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: The way it should be
By rcc on 3/7/2008 6:12:48 PM , Rating: 3
I question everything, continually. I admit to a bias when reviewing the work of a liberal, but I give both sides a fair shake.

Everything has to be taken in historical context. It's easy to say "they knew beforehand". I knew that eventually there would be a major terrorist attack on US soil. It was inevitable. Hopefully the government and it's intelligence sources had a better grip on the when and where possibilities. But knowing that is a far shot from predicting time and place and being able to take action. Particularly without violating anyone's rights.

As far as a government put up job, we'll just have to disagree on that.


RE: The way it should be
By cvmaas on 3/7/2008 7:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, maybe it is you that needs to learn how to read and properly do research. These comments on Pearl Harbor are very distasteful and disrespectful to those that gave their lives for us on that sad day!!

How you can constitute the USA receiving the declaration of war from Japan only 15 minutes before the attack into saying we knowingly sat back and let it happen is absurd! Honestly, did we really need to be decimated at Pearl Harbor in order to justify joining the war in self-defense? If Japan attacked us, and as you beleive, we could have actually fought back and not, not been told anything, would it really take anything more than that to justify self-defense?

You seem to forget that one way or another more than 50% of the country was for the Iraq war in the beginning. Granted, many people thought that way due to mis-information, but nonetheless, we were still drawn into war. Now if Iraq had attacked us, as Japan did, even if we didn't lose a single soldier in the attack, would anyone be complaining today about attacking Iraq?


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: The way it should be
By SlyNine on 3/7/2008 5:16:02 PM , Rating: 4
You my friend are about as goalable as they get. The places you get your information is neither subjective nor is it ever criticized by any respected forum. Plus I've seen some of those, It sounded like a missile or when they flat out lied and said that radar operator said that moved like a missile. SHE DIDN'T EVEN SAY THAT. So you are definitely the one that needs too get your facts straight.

You can hate the USA and live here. That's the great thing about the USA is the fact that you can hate it so much. But if you really want to hate on a country that gives you these freedoms, you should try living in a place that doesn't to see how it feels. But yet you would rather believe lies from afar, unless of course you live in France. Then the lies are local.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: The way it should be
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 5:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think your conspiracy theory rants are why people in other countries are sitting back right now and laughing at us like were a bunch of idiots.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: The way it should be
By SlyNine on 3/7/2008 6:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
LOL Yea like how much aid our foreign policies send out each year, Im sure they hate that. How is this world controlled by us. We remove one dictator that puts his people in acid baths and torture people with unbelievable methods and we get criticized for stopping that + genocide. So I do not see how we are governing the world one little bit. We have a voice and we speak it.

Not ever one was against the Iraq war going in and not every one is against it now. I for one see a lot of progress over there. You may watch all the anti US bs and think otherwise. It's your right to do so but it doesn't make you right.

I'm not saying that Bush's agenda is out in the open or even that honest. But you will never find one leader that is, The fact is this can help a lot of people in Iraq to a fair and just system. Give them a chance to have a democracy where they have a voice. Don't tell me they don't want that just because a few terrorist's start some trouble, most of them are not even from Iraq.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/2008 8:11:54 PM , Rating: 1
Quote: “Not ever one was against the Iraq war going in and not every one is against it now. I for one see a lot of progress over there. You may watch all the anti US bs and think otherwise. It's your right to do so but it doesn't make you right.

I'm not saying that Bush's agenda is out in the open or even that honest. But you will never find one leader that is, The fact is this can help a lot of people in Iraq to a fair and just system. Give them a chance to have a democracy where they have a voice. Don't tell me they don't want that just because a few terrorist's start some trouble, most of them are not even from Iraq”

No, not everyone was against the Iraq war at that time: because nobody knew the true facts (at that time), did they?

Let’s just say that it was a F*&! Up of Mass Proportions…(FUMP)

As long as my tax dollar is going to fund jobs here and a percentage of that is going into G ‘W’ Bush’s pocket, who cares?


RE: The way it should be
By SlyNine on 3/7/2008 8:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
In your opinion. Personally I think we would've been in Iraq sooner or later, and we should have finished the job the first time.


RE: The way it should be
By SlyNine on 3/7/2008 6:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you be a true skeptic then and not be brainwashed by our enemies and people from other countries. Its alright to question our government, that's what's great about it is we can do just that. However just getting hand feed what other US HATERS try to feed you is just STUPID.

What does it mean. Why can it not mean that they feel intimidated by US. Why can it mean they simply disagree, but if they do does that mean we have to see it their way. Why is it we are automatically in the wrong. I understand the stance against wanting any kinda war. But just as long as you realize that the opposition towards the war isn't tell 100% truths either. Like the no WMD thing, we knew and it was widely said going in that even if they ARE their we might never find them. Maybe them not finding them is more of a testimony to the fact they don't always lie as they could have simply planted them their if they wanted.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: The way it should be
By SlyNine on 3/7/2008 7:22:47 PM , Rating: 1
How has it been proven their were no WMD's, its been said alot , but never proven.

How would we feel if Iraq invaded us, well im pretty sure almost every man woman and child would fight for this country. Why because well, my friend. We are simply better then Iraq. yes that is an opinion but try to find people that dissagree. In Iraq however most of their old "warloards" are actully working with us, supporting us. A high percentage of the people we are fighting are not even from Iraq, So why should we leave Iraq. You may see us as the only invaders, but this is not true, we have more support then they do in Iraq. Why if Iraq doesnt like what we do for them did they stick their necks out and vote under threat of death. Did we threaten them if they didnt vote we'd kill them no. Sorry but what you say just doesnt stick because we are nothing like them.

and for this
"Everybody knows that the US (Tank factories and arms suppliers) got a major boost when the war on Iraq was started. That’s why other people elsewhere got pissed off because they were being pounded while loads of jobs in the US were being created and Bush and other investors reaped the fruits of that situation. While, all the time we’re being told that it’s justified – bullshit!"

This is nothing more then conjecture and opinion.

"Because of this ‘freedom of information’ etc. other countries can see that we’re raking-in the bounty of this situation. The man on the street sees a job – the other countries see a shit foreign policy?"

What!! please restate that. We have freedom of information, along with some other countries. But very few have the amount of freedom of information that we do, So because we have it doesnt mean jack for them.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/2008 7:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Quote: "This is nothing more then conjecture and opinion"

Have a read of this then:

http://www.democracynow.org/2001/11/2/george_bush_...

The Carlye Group. What do they make?


RE: The way it should be
By SlyNine on 3/8/2008 1:13:47 AM , Rating: 1
Chris Ayres, New York correspondent for The Times (London).
Well that about sums it up for me. LOL


RE: The way it should be
By marsbound2024 on 3/9/2008 11:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
Can we have -6 ratings, for the ultra dumbass comments? Just as we have +6 ratings for the really good ones.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/10/2008 6:46:35 AM , Rating: 2
I have a better idea: why don't we get dumb-asses like you to actually do some research of your own (looking at both sides of the debate), and then come-up with a resonable argument to the contrary?


RE: The way it should be
By marsbound2024 on 3/10/2008 4:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
I have better things to do with my life than debunking nonsense.


RE: The way it should be
By KeypoX on 3/7/2008 11:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
crap i meant to vote you down!!!! But thats wonderful you think that just because the military strategic information is feasible obtained that it should be made available via a google search program. Because if he wants it "he probably already has it"


RE: The way it should be
By Nik00117 on 3/8/2008 5:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think when they were banning it they were thinking of the higher profile poeple, those poeple have resources that other poeple simply do not have. If Bin Laden wants to attack a US base he will find out all he can and most likely near damn everything any how.

I think what the military is more concerned about is the small time poeple, poeple who don't have quite as much as much access.

Lets assume that there are a few individuals who hate the military and what they do so they decide to attack a base. Now first off they are amateurs. Their budget is limited, along with their connections. Such images could give them valuable intel to plan and coordinate a more effective strike. Letss ay the goog image displayed how the barriers are laid out, well they can plan for that, they see a gate and the poles are sharp at the top, they can plan for that. They see a gaurd post and notice a blind spot. They could find outt he height of the gates in order to overlap them. They could spend time going each piece of the picture anazyling even the smallest of smalls. They could notice that there is a door to the rear of a building etc.

All of this can be intel which they can use to attack us.

Without that, they wouldn't know the gaurd had a blind spot, the barriers would be more of a challenge, they couldn't tell what they needed to jump the fence. They wouldn't know what it was made out of, or the outsidelayout of the building. ALl things which could make an attack that much easier.

And again me being in a military community i've come to the understanding that regradless of freedom of information hippies say they are certain things about our gov which are better left covered up.

And me being in a military community I know quite a few intel guys (they are guys who basic job is pour over information, and write reports and so forth) and those guys have this thing called morals. Now how do you thing some of the past events that our gov has done have been leaked? By a guy in an office who saw somethign which he knew had to be uncovered so he uncovered it. Now let our gov have our sercets, granted lets contiue to challenge on them but we must also understand there are things which are to be said, and things which aren't to be said.


RE: The way it should be
By glennpratt on 3/7/2008 2:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't about satellite imagery. It's about Google Street view. AKA a car with cameras mounted on it, driving around taking pictures.


RE: The way it should be
By Christopher1 on 3/7/2008 4:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
What's the big deal about that? If a Army Transport cadre (not the right name, I know) is going down Route 22 near where I live to Aberdeen Proving Ground, I am fully allowed to take pictures of it and have done that before when I was 12.

Was I hassled over it? No.

I'm all for the cars not being able to go into Top Secret or Secret areas of the bases..... but let's get one thing straight here: most of those areas are clearly marked, are far away from the other areas where the truck SHOULD be allowed to go, and everything or most things 'secret' are inside a freaking building..... which, you can get detailed schematics for the layout of Area 51 on the internet.
Those make just as many 'secret' areas non-secret as much or more than these pictures would.


RE: The way it should be
By jimbojimbo on 3/7/2008 4:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
But do you post all your pictures on an easy to access web site with exact coordinates of every picture you took?


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/2008 6:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
No they’re not! We’re not a bunch of idiots and I’ll tell you why. It’s not a conspiracy theory: we’re not talking about a grassy knoll anymore, we talking about a world run by industrial power. The kind of power that gives us, as an industrial nation, a job. Hey, I’m not going to knock the country that provides me with a job that pays my mortgage, I’m not that crazy! What I will say is this: if you think that supporting things like the Iraq war from the start as, and I quote the White House, being an “economically good proposition”, I’d really like to see how that will pan out.

Where is the shame in that that you can honestly say, “I was wrong as a country, lets make it right”? Do you think people of other countries would think less of us for that? – I don’t think so…

People from other countries don’t hate us, they hate the crap that emanates from our foreign policies and have done since post WWII.


RE: The way it should be
By andyjary on 3/7/2008 6:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong post.... see above - sorry


agree
By sprockkets on 3/7/2008 2:14:37 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with the takedown, but the power of the internet is all about giving power to the people. The government should be worried that we have the ability to save history without them changing it on us, like how The Daily Show last night showed Bush in 2000 slamming the previous administration for letting a barrel of oil hit $30 LOL




RE: agree
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 2:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but the power of the internet is all about giving power to the people.

The power of the internet is about another form of global communications. As with anything else like television, telephones, cellphones, postal mailings, etc - everything needs some sort of regulation, small or large, to prevent and protect things.

In this case, there are government areas (and information) that should not be made available to the public. Remember, this is not a true democracy. The government does not work FOR you...they REPRESENT you.


RE: agree
By pauluskc on 3/7/2008 2:36:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
As with anything else like television, telephones, cellphones, postal mailings, etc - everything needs some sort of regulation, small or large, to prevent and protect things.


a.k.a. censorship

I hate the "freedom" of information act. Nothing about freedom in it.


RE: agree
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 2:43:22 PM , Rating: 4
Look man, its all about wanting your cake and eating it too.

Many left wing supporters want total freedom of information on television, yet want to yank Fox News off the air. They want freedom to do as they please on the radio airwaves, yet want Limbaugh yanked off the air.

Everybody wants some form of censorship - as long as it benefits them.

Nothing in this world is free though.


RE: agree
By pauluskc on 3/7/2008 3:05:11 PM , Rating: 4
I want cake. I never get cake. I get cow-pie. And I don't want to eat it, but I do anyways.

TANSTAAFL, I know. Personally, I can't think of a single thing I want censored for my own personal benefit. Not a thing.

So Imus says "nappy-headed ho's" and gets fired whilst Snoop sells more records the more ho's he uses.

Stupid country.


RE: agree
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 3:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. And if you want to drill down even more into the "stupid" part of the example...

Look at the special interest groups who were calling for the immediate firing on Imus for his language, all whilst not commenting on what they plan to do about Snoop Dog & 50 Cent.

Can you say its because Imus is white? You're getting warmer....


RE: agree
By pauluskc on 3/7/2008 3:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think it was really because he is that damn ugly. Ugly people get the most discrimination in the world, I know.

Although in hind-sight, it could be because the basketball team probably weren't ho's, but Snoop & 50's ho's are. So they can call them what they are, but Imus can't call them what they aren't.

That makes sense. Slander sucks and is legally protected against. Although people could develop a little bit thicker skin sometimes... But, surely W isn't taking the thousands of comedians to court for their slander against his presidency.


RE: agree
By Christopher1 on 3/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: agree
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 4:33:10 PM , Rating: 3
So let me get this right...the Fox News channel should be pulled because the vast majority of their tv personalities share a common political view - notice i say most, not all (ala Alan Colmes for example).

Also, you are very misguided in the fact that you cannot tell the difference between a news program and an opinion talk show. They have certain shows dedicated to news (like Shepard), and they have popular opinionated shows (Oreilly, Hannity & Colmes).

So let me get this right, Fox News isn't allowed to exist becuase they have talk shows that exibit a certain political sided view - when other channels like MSNBC and CNN do not? For example, how about Keith Olberman? What exactly gives a former ESPN sports broadcaster who blantantly politically left sided, a pass as being "fair and balanced" or "always honest"?

This has nothing to do with censorship. This has to do with you wanting to push your political motives and force others to turn a deaf ear to the "freedom of information" that counters your view....much to the way that you come in here trying to force people to accept your pedophilia garbage and how the US is dependant upon the unwealthy.

Murder and zealot prevention? Please. You are a seriously misguided little liberal who needs to accept that not everyone shares your viewpoint, wants to hear your viewpoint, and doesn't need you to force them to accept anything less than what they currently beleive in.


RE: agree
By Christopher1 on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: agree
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 4:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He has admitted that he is extremely far left leaning on air, unlike the people from Fox News.

But that is an opinionated show, must like many of the shows on Fox News. If its an opinionated talk show, what differce does it make if they are all right winged? The bottom line is that no one is forced to watch fox news, but you're upset that Fox News audience is larger than all the other combined for its popular shows.
quote:
Look at the people who are terrorists in the world today: conservatives, all of them, I am sorry to say.

I think you have a very misconstrued definition of "terrorist". What is a terrorist - someone who doesn't stand for the same things YOU believe in? Well in that case, Im one...and proud of it. However, back to the facts - please name these conservatives, "all of them" as you say, who are terrorists by definition.

Not one liberal? John Walker Lindh?
quote:
I DO have a problem, as I said in my first posting, with them saying that they are 'Fair and Balanced' (their tagline, which they are nothing close to being) and existing while perpetuating that lie that they are 'Fair and Balanced'.

The "Fair and Balanced" statement holds true to those who are either conservatives or routinely watch the shows to get a viewpoint on a certain topic. I wouldnt want to watch it if they always portrayed the global warming crap, or talked about increasing welfare and social programs. What is "fair and balanced" is up to the individual person who is watching the channel. They do not exist to to please everyone - but they obviously share a very common viewpoint by results of their ratings!
quote:
The only people who do that are conservatives, who when you buck their viewpoints, threaten you with violence against your body and murdering you. Have you ever heard of a liberal saying "You do what I want you to do or I will kill you!"

I've never heard a conservative threaten anyone with violence for disagreeing with a viewpoint. You are just going on rants and raves because the people you talk to do not buy into the sissy liberal b.s. If you do not want that type of feedback, then start talking to a new audience who shares your same view.
quote:
Liberals simply want to be LEFT ALONE and be allowed to do what they want to do, as long as they are not causing physical harm to someone else by doing what they are doing without that other person's permission.

Liberals want to be LEFT ALONE? Are you serious? Liberals want to increase peoples taxes, force us to drive smaller and lower performance cars, and change my entire lifestyle...but they dont want me to say anything about it and just wnat me to leave them alone?

Wow. Back to my previous statement...."want their cake and eat it too"....while also eating everyone elses, but expecting them to keep quiet about it.


RE: agree
By SlyNine on 3/7/2008 5:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
This is my understanding of what the meaning of liberal and conservative means.

First off weather you're a liberal or conservative depends on what you believe and where you live. Say you live in a country that has health care. If you don't want health care then you are a liberal, If you want it then you are a conservative. Terrorists by nature are liberal because they want to CHANGE things.

Also I disagree, you just don't like someone that supports the government to report news. You would rather have someone that reports the other guys propaganda to fulfill your own belief that the USA is a horrible and bad place and every thing needs to change. LOL I am all for socialized medicine and health care. So I could be called a liberal (in the US) but I wouldn't want to be in the same category as you.


RE: agree
By rcc on 3/7/2008 6:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just about change. It's about change for a reason. A good conservative doesn't object to change, they are just conservative about it. Is it necessary, is it beneficial to our society. What are the negative impacts?

While many liberals consider these things, far too often it's a matter of how do I get what I want. How often does "we are standing up for your rights" turn into "we what to get xyz so you have to give up abc".

Shrugs. Perspective is an entertaining thing.


RE: agree
By Chaser on 3/7/2008 5:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's "censorship" not to provide high resolution maps and imagery of U.S. military bases to anyone?

Absolutely. These are military installations, not driving directions to the mall.


RE: agree
By SilthDraeth on 3/7/2008 4:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
Otherwise known as a Republic.


RE: agree
By rcc on 3/7/2008 4:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, it also lets 3 billion people put their own spin on history.

Revisionist history isn't always about revealing the truth. Sometimes it's about "getting my name in the media".

None of which has anything to do the clip you were talking about.

If you want to be mildy amused, find the films/mpegs of the Kennedy Nixon debates and contrast them to politics today.


What Authority?
By pauldovi on 3/7/2008 3:31:08 PM , Rating: 3
Under what authority can the Pentagon ban Google's activities? Ohh, probably the same illegal authority the government uses to spy on everyone else.




RE: What Authority?
By kyleb2112 on 3/7/2008 3:53:21 PM , Rating: 3
The government reserves the authority to call you up in a draft and force you to kill or die. A little perspective wouldn't be out of line here.


RE: What Authority?
By pauldovi on 3/7/2008 4:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Again, that is another unconstitutional right the government has made for itself, of many.


RE: What Authority?
By Christopher1 on 3/7/2008 4:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no, they don't. The draft laws expired YEARS ago and they have never put another law reinstating the draft back into effect.

They cannot force you to kill or die as well.... if you are a conscientious objector and simply believe that killing is wrong, like myself, they CANNOT force you to go against your beliefs.
They can find you a non-combat job over here or in the combat zone, but they cannot make you kill or die for this country.


RE: What Authority?
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 4:44:18 PM , Rating: 3
You may want to do a little bit more reading on this sonny.

You are correct that the draft law does not exist, however there is an opening in current law that they could reinstate it if it passed through congress.

Also, if during war times where there is an instituted draft, you do not have a choice in what job you are going to. The reason the draft was there were because more soldiers were needed than those who volunteered. None of the people drafted in vietnam WANTED to go, or WANTED to kill, but none the less they were forced to fulfill their duty overseas in a war zone. Now whether you kill or not kill, die or not die, is up to you once you are on the battlefield.

If you really think that after the government drafts you into a military sector for war, that they are just going to let choose your job...you are greatly mistaken.


RE: What Authority?
By Christopher1 on 3/7/2008 4:55:52 PM , Rating: 1
Notice, I also said that they could reinstate it in my posting.... work on your reading skills, please.

Also, you do have a choice in wartime of what job you will have if you have a moral or religious objection to killing another human being. Don't give me that bullshit that you don't because my uncle's brother used that exemption. They kept it away from combat driving supply trucks for the Army, where he was kept away from action, and that WAS during Vietnam and Korea.


RE: What Authority?
By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 5:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
I dont buy it. Its all bull, you dont get drafted against your will for war, then given a choice between an M16 on a battlefield running over dead bodies, or driving a jeep and making sure the coffee pot is filled.

Sorry, but logic says otherwise.


RE: What Authority?
By rcc on 3/7/2008 5:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's entirely possible Mdog. It's self preservation on the part of the troops that work for a living. You don't want someone that's not going to do their job next to you in the foxhole.


RE: What Authority?
By rdeegvainl on 3/10/2008 8:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to look at you like you're stupid for thinking the military follows logic, whilst I jump through a hundred hoops to get something fixed.


RE: What Authority?
By rcc on 3/7/2008 6:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Like most of our current armed forces, I have no desire to kill or even injure anyone. However, if it's necessary to protect me or mine (and mine includes this country), I certainly will.

As far as conscientous objectors go, they don't need to volunteer. But, if this country needs them and they refuse? Grant them an exemption, and a one way ticket to the country of their choice. Because if you are unwilling to defend your country (or home, or family) in time of need, you have no business living there.

IMNSHO, of course.


RE: What Authority?
By Coca Cola on 3/7/2008 7:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
if all the pc/console gamers(FPS), fat,skinny, and in between were drafted, you'd get a military force so ELITE without wasting time training them, just ship out right away to the battlefield to kill. You know this would be true since we all played countless hours on these murder simulation games, the skills and preparation for killing are honed in, all you need to keep us happy is to give us XFIRE stickers to stick on our radios to communicate with our squad more efficiently...well..at least in jack thompson's warped mind.

RECOMMENDED TRAINING MANUAL - SoF II, CSS, CSS:S, etc.
MY TRAINING MANUAL - Soldier of Fortune II
HOURS TRAINED - Unknown
BLURB - Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand
READY - Affirmative

...what's your training manual, lol


How hard is it to understand the basic concept?
By MrBlastman on 3/7/2008 3:26:23 PM , Rating: 3
How hard is it to understand that Military installations are critical areas that are essential for our National Defense.

Without the Military, what way do we have to defend ourselves from the rest of the world? We have the 2nd Amendment, which grants us our right to bear Arms; however there are many people whom would be quite content to elminate that as well.

So I ask you: If we allow Military Bases to be photographed, detailed and made readily available online, while at the same time we have the 2nd Amendment repealed (which MANY on the far left feel both should be allowed to be done - in fact I'd go so far as they'd like to see our Military drained to squat), how will America ever be able to defend itself from combatants around the world?

You could argue - But PEACE is stronger than the SWORD. I can counter argue that it is Human Nature to destroy, kill, maim and conquer. There will always be people bent on global/regional domination regardless of our or other countries peacful policies (assuming we do not institute a mind-manipulation policy with emotionally engineered brain implants). It is part of the innate human psyche that goes back to the beginnings of our history on Earth. I don't see it changing any time soon.

You could argue we can build a wall or a fence and remain numb to the rest of the world - but I would argue that if we were to do so, due to the freely existing information that to these people should be allowed, outsiders would be able to survey our walls and defenses and figure out how to circumvent them from their own homes.

What then? Sadly, there are still many people that fail to realize the importance our Military serves.

I could go on but I'll leave it at this: If our Military is here to defend us, why on earth should we make information freely available to the GLOBAL populace which would render us vulnerable to outside influences?

There is a reason our Military bases should be kept private in many areas to prying eyes (within reason). There is a much larger reason to avoid keeping their inner workings and layouts from the global populace for analysis, plotting and scheming.

With the 2nd Amendment in place, we have armed citizens which counter-act the governmental and military influence they have over the populace internally. I'd be one hell of a war if our Military turned on the people and nobody should ever doubt the resolve of our citizens.

They are Military bases people, they aren't your local Costco. Of course their likeness and workings should not be available freely on the internet. Why can not people understand this?




By pauldovi on 3/7/2008 4:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
The US spends billions of dollars more than the rest of the world of military and defense related programs. Don't think for a second that any army is going to sail across thousands of miles of ocean to attack us. Your out of your mind.

Don't worry, the US will fall because of economic and monetary breakdown long before any army invades us.

When you spend $1 trillion a year maintaining an empire and several more trillion a year for welfare your currency is bound to crash and your economy will collapse under pressure.


By Christopher1 on 3/7/2008 4:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
Several more trillion a year for welfare? What freaking world are you living in. The United States spends a grand total of 10 billion dollars on all welfare programs.

That is nowhere NEAR trillions of dollars on welfare programs, which are only NECESSARY because businesses are taking advantage of their workers today and not paying them the wages that they should be being paid.

Notice how much they said a person needs to support JUST THEMSELVES in the world today? 15 dollars an hour. Most people get paid closer to 8-9 dollars an hour.

If you want to get rid of welfare (which we should not do), it is time to start turning 'welfare' into something called "Payment for raising our next generation" and start giving that automatically to women and men who have children and are single, because they are doing EXACTLY THAT, raising our next generation which takes a hell of a lot more time and energy than even working at a warehouse job.

I know that from personal experience. I am working right now at a day care center (yes, they know what I am and so do the parents) and it is HARDER than working at the warehouses I worked at, because you are having to watch out, not only for yourself, but for 5-8 OTHER people who are inexperienced and who don't know that doing some things will cause permanent physical harm to themselves.

Also, look at the country that pays the most out in social welfare. It isn't the United States...... dum-da-dum..... ready for a shock - Saudi Arabia and Australia are tied, and they are doing pretty darn well.


By mdogs444 on 3/7/2008 5:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
which are only NECESSARY because businesses are taking advantage of their workers today and not paying them the wages that they should be being paid.

You earn wages based on SKILL and demand for a position, now how hard you work. You can train a monkey to answer phones all day - should he be paid a much higher wage than he is now? The laws of supply and demand correlate perfectly well to the job market.
quote:
15 dollars an hour. Most people get paid closer to 8-9 dollars an hour.

Then go back to school, get a better education, get a second job, etc. If you are only making 16-18k/year as you just suggested, then you would be able to go to college for next to nothing on need based grants, and if you dont qualify for those, then you automatically qualify for student loans. Yes, you'll have to pay them back just like everyone else does.
quote:
"Payment for raising our next generation" and start giving that automatically to women and men who have children and are single, because they are doing EXACTLY THAT, raising our next generation which takes a hell of a lot more time and energy than even working at a warehouse job.

So let me get this right. Families who pay taxes, and have 2, 3, or 4 kids should have to pay into the welfare system so someone else can raise their kids? What about the parents right to provide a better future for their own kids? This entitlement and welfare bull**** is getting old really fast. Get motivated, get off your lazy ***, and do something with your life. Not everything is perfect, and the world isnt going to change for you. Its call get an education, and learn how to better yourself within the system that is currently in place.
quote:
I know that from personal experience. I am working right now at a day care center (yes, they know what I am and so do the parents) and it is HARDER than working at the warehouses I worked at, because you are having to watch out, not only for yourself, but for 5-8 OTHER people who are inexperienced and who don't know that doing some things will cause permanent physical harm to themselves.

Again, not sure what is so hard about this to understand. You are paid based upon your skills. You must possess something that someone else needs, and is difficult to find. Exactly why there is no market for someone with only a high school diploma. They are a dime a dozen, so why would anyone pay you more money for it? Just becuase you want them to? Being a child day care person is difficult work, so is stacking boxes in a warehouse, and so is digging ditches. But none of them require any skills that are in high demand above and beyond and average person! I've heard you cite so many times in here that they should raise the minimum wage to $20/hr. You have no sense of economics because by doing that, all you are doing are raising the price of the products that we buy. If labor cost increases, so do production cost, operating expenses, and the final price of the product. Its a direct correlation.
quote:
Also, look at the country that pays the most out in social welfare. It isn't the United States...... dum-da-dum..... ready for a shock - Saudi Arabia and Australia are tied, and they are doing pretty darn well.

Have you ever considered the term "standard of living". Go ahead and compare the standards of living between the US and the people of Saudi Arabia. You talk about people being poor throughout the world - and its quite sad. But people in the US are not poor. Most of the poor in the US have color televisions, heat, running water, electricity, lamps, a dvd player, etc. Im sorry, that is not poor. Its just a lower standard of living compared to the middle class who have what the lower class lacks: "motivation to better themselves".


By SlyNine on 3/8/2008 9:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ha , Iv worked for lowes distribution center, and seen how some of these people handle the job. Many of these people have kids man and women and still cannot handle the job. You're so full of BS its coming out your eyes.

My dad raised me by himself working a full time job plus overtime. Get over it.


By SlyNine on 3/8/2008 9:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
I love how we reinvent negitive words to fit new things that we dont like. the USA is not anything like an empire.


RE: How hard is it to understand the basic concept?
By walk2k on 3/7/2008 4:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't you understand that you can't preserve freedom abroad by eliminating it at home?

It's a very basic concept.

What is our military there to defend if not our freedom?

Obviously you don't want sensitive or secret areas to be photographed - that's why you keep the public OUT of those areas.

As long as the Google van is on public roads (including those inside military bases - which after all are PUBLIC property, paid for with public tax dollars) they have no right to keep censor them.

After all any terrorist could drive the same street and take the same pictures.


By MrBlastman on 3/8/2008 3:01:24 AM , Rating: 2
Preventing Google from cataloging and posting detailed pictorial information of our military bases on the internet within the domestic United States in now way eliminates YOUR or OUR personal freedom in this country.

It protects it.

The people outside our nation that hate us so dearly (aka terrorists and other hostile nations) would take great joy in infiltrating our nation and conducting pinpointed attacks on critical areas of our infrastructure and perhaps the areas that defend us directly to create dissaray and chaos.

You see, if they were to succeed on such attacks due to Google being allowed to post information on our national defense, how much freedom would you have at that point?

I dare say you would have even less than you have now. Look at what happened after 9-11. The Patriot Act was signed into law. Albeit quite controversial, it has adversely effected quite a few of our civil liberties. The only reason we got to the point of 9-11 was Americas lackluster attitude towards the rest of the world that was out to get us and our ignorance towards what they sought to do to us.

So, you see, by practicing ignorance (like allowing Google to post information that could be used to plot an attack on a US installation), you are in effect continuing down the road of "ignorance is bliss" which in turn will doom you to yet further liberties being removed. I dare say that prevening Google is far less of an infringement on your day-to-day lives than what it could be if such an attack were to occur.

What would you rather have? I think it is silly to continue on the old ways of ignore until it hurts us. Complacency has doomed many a great Empire throughout the world. Do you really want to piss down the drain what hundreds of thousands of American men and women have died for?

The difference between a terrorist going down the same street and taking those pictures and the Google van is very simple:

The Google Van is already here. The Google Van shares such imagery in a catalogued way that is accessable GLOBALLY to people that do not even have to set foot outside of their own home. A terrorist on the other hand, would first have to gain access to our nation and then throughout all the dissaray they would then have to disseminate a plan of action in far more of a meticulous and cautious, time-consuming matter than they would otherwise. That is why there is a difference between the two. Having a plan already in place far before access is gained allows for advanced planning and more rapid implementation when within our nation. This also would increase their likelyhood of success.

Why take that chance? I'd rather preserve what liberties we have than give up even more to the absurdity of ignoring until it is too late.


That's weird...
By LatinMessiah on 3/7/2008 1:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Google was bigger than the military.




RE: That's weird...
By tjr508 on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: That's weird...
By dever on 3/7/2008 2:08:03 PM , Rating: 3
While I completely agree with your statement, the fact that the van when "inside" the military complex seems to be over the top. Many corporations would be just as outraged if it were their property.


RE: That's weird...
By glennpratt on 3/7/2008 2:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know where it was, but some military bases are like small cities. It's not like they went into a top secret area.


RE: That's weird...
By dever on 3/7/2008 3:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
I can see Microsoft welcoming the Google van onto their campus now. (Actually, they would probably think that would be great.)

However, if your company has a plant where knowledge of it's layout could help their competitors, I bet they would be pretty testy about using cameras ON THEIR PROPERTY.


RE: That's weird...
By Christopher1 on 3/7/2008 4:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
True. I am allowed on the base near where I live as long as I give them a reason for why I am going on the base. I've even told the person at the gate that I am going on the base to take pictures of landmarks around there, and they haven't done jack because I am honest about it and they gave me permission as long as I stayed away from the areas marked 'No civilians without military escort'.


RE: That's weird...
By SlyNine on 3/8/2008 9:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
Have you tried lately, Delivered furniture in Cheyenne. One day it was all peachy, the next day they had dogs sniffing the truck and guys with M16's watching over. I asked them if I could tour the base on my spare time, and they said they do not allow that right now nor do they plan on allowing it again.

So basically the base here is pretty much locked off from the general public unless you know someone on the inside, or you're let in because of where you work.


Umm...
By Spivonious on 3/7/2008 2:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight...the Google car with a giant camera apparatus on the roof was allowed to enter a military base? Those guards should be court martialed.




RE: Umm...
By Darkk on 3/7/2008 3:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
I actually seen em before going down I580 last month in Californa. It's not obvious to everybody what it is because it's mounted on a 3 foot black pole with a thingy on top strapped to the roof that looks like a giant antenna and the car was unmarked, no stickers or logos of any kind. The security guards probably didn't know what it was. Still, they should have questioned it.

Darkk


RE: Umm...
By jimbojimbo on 3/7/2008 4:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
Some bases are so huge that cutting through them is the best way to get to your destination. I knew of at least one base that allowed licensed and insured drivers to cut through even if they weren't military and this was just a couple of years ago.


RE: Umm...
By walk2k on 3/7/2008 5:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
Many many military bases have public roads in them. It's not even a rare occurance. Tens of thousands of civilian vehicles drive thru them every day with absolutely no restrictions on the public areas.


Who needs sattelite images when...
By polarity on 3/7/2008 2:12:32 PM , Rating: 3
So all a terrorist has to do to infiltrate a US military base, is drive up in a van with the Google logo on the side, and a bunch of cameras on the roof?




By pauluskc on 3/7/2008 2:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was a CNN logo that was minimum req.??


The military really missed out on this opportunity
By 7Enigma on 3/10/2008 8:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
Here's an idea:

Rather than requiring these images be taken down, the military should have gone to Google, explained how these images could be used for harm, and instead worked with Google to use modified images that are NOT accurate. Have a wall photoshopped out of the image, or put extra security measures in the photo so each base looks like a fortress. Keep the overall look similar so at first glance the Google image looks like the actual building. But if the image were to be used for infiltrating/destroying the base, there would be a critical flaw to the plan.

I'm sure all the armchair generals would jump at an opportunity to plan either a base so well fortified it would never be attacked, or so feeble an attacker wouldn't bring the proper hardware to get the job done.

Disclaimer: I am neither a Dem or Rep, normally fall on the "free speech" side of discussions, but in this case fully agree with the military's need/right to pull these images. I just feel they could have actually BENEFITTED from modifying them rather than the backlash created from having them taken down.




By MrBlastman on 3/10/2008 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
Given the fact that Google is a very Liberal organization, I don't think I could ever see them co-operating with the US Government.


Google Map It!
By Mitch101 on 3/7/2008 1:23:27 PM , Rating: 3
I think their should be an easy way to OPT-OUT of some of these things.

http://www.thevacationeers.com/Videos:_Googlemaps....




By sh3rules on 3/7/2008 6:31:03 PM , Rating: 3
Russia and China have satellites in space gathering information. If a Russian satellite flies over “American Space”, is the U.S. going to shoot it down? The point is, if you care about keeping your secrets, you keep them in some expensive uberleet underground facility with expensive uberleet military security (hehe, you'd need many augmentations to infiltrate Area 51 anyway). Going after Google seems like going after the wrong guys.




haha
By omnicronx on 3/7/2008 5:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really think a real terrorist organization is going to bomb or commit a terrorist act on a location that has never been seen or scouted out? Pictures leave out too many variables, and from the complexity of the terrorist acts I have seen, I think a bit more planning went into them than just taking a look at a few pictures.




By fictisiousname on 3/7/2008 7:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
and it sets off a war on Daily Tech between right and left wingers.




other countries
By Missing Ghost on 3/7/2008 8:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
So I guess Google is still taking photos of military bases in other countries? They really lack common sense.




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki