Sooner or later Google is going to have to start doing a better job of coming to grips with the collateral damage created by the ever-expanding array of wiz-bang applications that have made it a worldwide phenomenon.
Some of that collateral damage is now landing on the heads of British soldiers (and, one would presume, their American and "coalition" counterparts in Iraq) as insurgents are reportedly using images gleaned from Google Earth to pinpoint mortar and rocket attacks against the most vulnerable targets inside military bases.
Google has long operated under a philosophy that holds the company responsible for freeing up as much of the world's information as possible. I'm not suggesting that needs to change – it has done infinitely more good than bad -- but that the questions and problems arising from that quest will only get louder and more severe.
From the Telegraph report:
Documents seized during raids on the homes of insurgents last week uncovered print-outs from photographs taken from Google. The satellite photographs show in detail the buildings inside the bases and vulnerable areas such as tented accommodation, lavatory blocks and where lightly armored Land Rovers are parked.
Written on the back of one set of photographs taken of the Shatt al Arab Hotel, headquarters for the 1,000 men of the Staffordshire Regiment battle group, officers found the camp's precise longitude and latitude.
"This is evidence as far as we are concerned for planning terrorist attacks," said an intelligence officer with the Royal Green Jackets battle group. "Who would otherwise have Google Earth imagery of one of our bases? We are concerned that they use them to plan attacks. We have never had proof that they have deliberately targeted any area of the camp using these images but presumably they are of great use to them."
Google's reply was to acknowledge that Google Earth can be used for "good and bad," as well as to pledge an open mind regarding the situation:
"We have opened channels with the military in Iraq but we are not prepared to discuss what we have discussed with them," a spokesperson told the newspaper. "But we do listen and we are sensitive to requests."
Not sure that answer would comfort me if I'm a soldier eating breakfast in Basra with only a tent/bulls-eye over my head.
But I'm also not at all sure how much Google can – or, more precisely, should -- do about the "bad" uses of its products.
Google Earth and Google Maps do have the ability to "pixel out" specific locations – Vice President Cheney's residence, for example – but such images are readily available elsewhere for the determined seeker. Does Google have an obligation to deter the less determined? If so, where do the lines get drawn?
Of course, Google has demonstrated in other ways that it is willing to take extraordinary measures when it perceives an abuse of its own tools. In the case I have in mind, the "victim" was not a soldier, but Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who apparently believed an online news organization, CNet, invaded his privacy by Googling him and publishing the results.
Google jumped all over that abuse by blacklisting all CNet reporters for a time.
It was petty ... and Google never did explain its reasoning.
There's nothing petty about the Google-enabled targeting of soldiers ... and Google should at least step up and fully explain it's thinking about such matters.
(Update: Headlines such as these are one purely business-related reason Google might want to be more open about its thinking.)
Welcome Slashdotters, regulars and passersby. If you have time, here are a few more recent Buzzblog posts that either drew a crowd or should have (he whines):
Nokia gets fire investigator to flip-flop on why phone burned; victim's lawyer will be a tougher sell
Google engineer shares a life lesson: Don’t tell the bank your checks were stolen.
Smart money flowing to Apple in Cisco's iPhone challenge.
Shakespeare wags a finger at Microsoft/Novell pact … has plenty to say about other tech matters, too.
Here's why Wikileaks is a horrible idea.
Holy crap, look where he put the server.
Google News offers 'fond farewell' to … President Bush?
Congressional aide admits trying to hire hackers -- to boost his college GPA
I'm curious -- What is it
I'm curious -- What is it that you want them to explain? Why they think that the planet earth should be free for everyone to look at? Or to explain why they don't place blocks on their site to prevent insurgents from viewing it?
Google Earth and Google Maps
Well... yes.
It's simple. Firearms are readily available, but when I have an argument with my neighbour, I am not going to hand him the gun that he can use to shoot me.
I'm just not that stupid.
Google shouldn't be either.
You must have a real problem with your neighbor
When I have an arguement with my neighbor, I hope we both have the good sense not to use our guns against each other for something so petty.
Also, metaphorically speaking, google has given its neighbors the gun to shoot itself with: their headquarters is fully viewable on google maps.
Google Earth
OK and let's ban Ordnance Survey maps, mobile phones, binoculars, etc., since the insurgents can use those two. Let's have a go at Nokia, Carl Zeiss and the British Government as well.
Honestly this article is just a typically naive and pointless load of bollocks, and you should be ashamed of yourself for jumping on the brainless tabloid-style journalist bandwagon. It's not as if Google's photographs are even that up-to-date!
Harry
Google maps and Intelligence
First, Google obtains its GIS information from the US govt. So while Google makes the information easy for anyone to access, it doesn't do the initial public release.
Second, asking Google to obscure something is the equivalent of putting a big sign on the front lawn which says, "Fire mortars here". Governments might be less than willing to give this kind of sensitive information to Google, especially when the images Google uses are often *years* old.
Third, Google has to be very careful of playing favoritism. Which governments get the right to request this kind of thing? Who pays for the work this requires of Google? If the governments do, then things can be rather shady.
Fourth, in an age of terrorism, obscuring sensitive government installations has no influence upon the potential to use this information to stage attacks upon civillian targets.
Fifth, as tools and technology get into the public, rich militaries are bound to have less of an edge. Empowerment cuts both ways; does anyone seriously think that the OLPC project, for example, will not result in some machines being misused to the great harm of some people? The gamble, at least, is that the pros outweight the cons.
Terrorist use Google Earth
I cannot understand why it took a newspaper to alert people to the risk. Even a cursory glance at Earth will show that it is iseal for targetting.
As to what they can do to tighten up - why bother? Any little kid with a GPS device in his dishadasha I am sure can walk around a Army camp to get locations down to a few metres. It is then simple maths to get target settings back to those locations. Anyway, Earth is not the only satellite image resource.
Google Maps
Doesn't Microsoft have an Earth server, too? I can type in any address in the U. S. and get all sorts of information about it, including its latitude and longitude.
And NASA has the visible Earth as well.
Commercial enterprises are selling images of the world to anyone who wants to use them, including Google. Do you honestly believe that Google has its own satellite sending real-time data to the ground? The picture of my house is years old, judging from the trees in the picture that I had removed four years ago.
And another problem: by obscuring some sites and not others, does Google open up a liability issue for not obscuring the second site?
OMG this is by far the most
OMG this is by far the most insane article i've EVER read. This terrorists-everywhere obsession has driven you Americans in a frenzy. Wake up at last, that's what they want you to do: fear everything that moves, everything that looks suspicious by their standards, and give them the opportunity to halt your (and our) democratic rights.
damn..
It's not that insane, by McNamara standards.
McNamara writes crazy things all the time. It's impossible to tell whether he actually believes the things he writes or he just likes getting people's backs up.
Either way, it's sad that there is a large group of people in the US that think the way to defend freedom is by eliminating it. I have a hard time telling the difference between a terrorist who would kill you for being an infidel and a government that would kill you for wearing a backpack on a subway. Unfortunately, there are now so many people who think that the way to avoid surrendering to terrorism is to surrender to the government that there is now a name for them: Republicans.
As for Google Earth, the idea of keeping dangerous knowledge out of the hands of unbelievers in order to "protect" the populace has already been tried. It was called the Catholic Church. You might want to ask Galileo and a few of the "guests" of the Inquisitor how well that succeeded.
Crazy? Fine, but don't you dare call me ...
... a Republican. First off, it's not true; all of this craziness is coming from a lifelong Democrat and knee-jerk liberal. Also, where I come from (Massachusetts), calling someone a Republican could be considered "fighting words." We like to keep things on a more civil level here at Network World. ... Thanks for chiming in, though.