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

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
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
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
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki