Too much information?

[SolemnSound]

I was watching the news last night and an issue was brought to my attention that I never really paid much attention to. The great access that the public has to massive amounts of information. The biggest concern is with Google Earth and being able to see any location around the world in a very detailed perspective. This includes possible targets that terroists could and would attack and terroists also have access to this.

sorry I dont have an article or anything about this but I saw it on the news and thought it was quite interesting. A suggestion was made to google to either blur out possible targets, but google's statement was that the images on google earth are not theirs to alter.

My main question here is do you think the public has too much access to information and do you think information should be limited?
_________________

[Fu Su Lu]

Maybe. Now you mention Google Earth, you should know that you are able to see Area 51, yes, that secret US military instalation it is not supposed to exist :*laugh*: Howewer, strategic parts of it are not available to see, and the same happens at other places. I saw a strange black wide line in the middle of nowhere, avoiding whatever was there to be seen, for example.

Altough, i dont think information should be limited to be fair. And I dont think we have access to so many things. I think that what we are able to see is what we have been allowed to, you know.
_________________
The drunkest cavalry unit in the world.
Who lights a candle casts a shadow.
Uncle Weirdo is on hoilidays... by now

[Gil-galad]

I don't really have a problem with Google Earth, because, to be honest, it's more of a map tool than an invasion of privacy. Most of what is available through Google Earth is available at any library in maps.

However-- the new Google product "Google Street Viewer" is kind of ridiculous. Quite an invasion of privacy on that regard. I know of several cases that half naked women have been captured and other 'not so nice' imagery has been captured through this new program. I think that might be taking things a bit too far.
_________________

[HarmonianHiccup]

This is a touchy subject. :)

I am both anti and pro at the same time--I LOVE the fact that I can see the very street I used to live on in Yokohama, but the fact that you can zoom in and see my car parked on my current street totally freaks me out. It am definitely a private person and I don't want people knowing who/where I am without me knowing it, so it really does make me nervous.

As for Google's claim that the images aren't theirs to alter--that's a lame excuse.
_________________

Proud Owner and Operator of The Hiccup's Speciality Grassland Atelier, the only place to find Electric Whiffle Bats!

[Tullaryx]

The way Google Earth and other Map Library service has things at the moment is fine by me. What I am against is for people who want their maps not to have those so-called missing, blacked out areas. There's a reason why those areas on certain maps on record are blacked out. They're highly confidential military and government facilities which no one outside of the people running them have any business knowing about.

I mean why would someone who has no ties to the military or the government want with high-resolution maps of U.S. SAC and Missile bases, or even of the so-called "Area 51" and "Dreamland" facilities in the Southwest. I would say the same of why people would want the same pictures of Russian military facilities if they have no need for them. Wars and international incidents have started with less.

I would also agree with Gil on the privacy concerns with the Google Street Viewer. If the picture seen is of a person standing outside in public then that person is fair game and shouldn't expect privacy. But if the picture taken happens to be of people inside their home who do not know that the camera angle can see inside their home then that's pushing the boundary of what's public domain and what's private.
_________________

[Pilika]

Well, I really have nothing against this. If you do not want people to see you doing something that you should not be doing, than do not do it. That said, I think this can be a powerful tool, if exploited in the right way. Voyeur's will love it though.
_________________

[Sniper_Zegai]

I dont view google earth as an invasion of privacy, I would use it as a map tool myself and I dont have a problem with it. And as for the terrorist thing, if you think about it, you dont need google earth to tell you what would make a good high density target. Football arenas, train stations etc.
_________________

[Tullaryx]

Well, it has been widely reported that the group who planned on blowing up the fuel lines at JFK International in New York used Google Earth to get a detailed layout of where all the facilities to be targetted would be. It's not enough knowing where a certain location is at which one wouldn't need Google Earth or other similar sites for, but knowing exact details of buildings, infrastructure and other details that a hi-res satellite map would point out is what some anti-Google Earth are more concerned about.
_________________

[Eden]

Well, I don't care about Google Earth and as Zegai said, Terroists are probably smart enough to get their "ideal" place for attacks without Google, but I think your last sentence, philosopherking, is completely wrong and rather dangerous. Information should never be limited and the possibilities to get them should never to handled in a way noit everyone could get any information he or she wants. When I say "any", I certainly don't mean how to commit a crime the most effective way or state secrets for example, but a general limitation of informational access is one of the most dangerous things, because this way only information provided by certain groups with special interests can be implented into someone's mind...
_________________


The Fool

[Tullaryx]

The question is who determines what should be considered top-secret and confidential and not to be seen by the general public. I think people put too much emphasis on freedom of free information. If such places were off-limits before the advent of the internet then why should they suddenly be made public just because someone has found a way to circumvent government blocks to keep it secret.

Yes, terrorist groups have other means to find out the location and detail of targets they see as high-priority but having a site like Google Earth where they don't have to answer any questions as to why they're needing such detailed, hi-resolution overhead satellite imagery makes their research easier. I'd rather think people would want them to have a harder time with their research instead of making it easy for them.
_________________

[SolemnSound]

I do not believe that information should be limited. It was just a question, not a statement I believe myself and I was curious what everyone's opinion on this matter was. Granted that if someone truely wants information they can find someway to get it for the most part.
_________________

[Tullaryx]

[Eden]

I hope you didn't feel insulted. I wasn't trying to say that you made a wrong statement or you are wrong, but that your last sentence, without telling it was your very own idea, was wrong. I should have made it more obviously. Sorry for that. I hope you didn't get me completely wrong ;)
_________________


The Fool

[Amyral]

Google Earth wasn't the first to do it. Geologists have been doing a similar thing for decades before Google was even thought of. That information wasn't private before, it was just harder to access because it required you to go to a location and look at the map, but it was definitely public information. What Google Earth did, much to the various scientists glee, was more or less compile the pictures into a way they've always wanted it done, but never thought they'd see.

As an invasion of privacy, I'm going to deal with how it works in the US, since I live there. In the US, when you're in the public view, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's the law. What that means is that if you're outside where other people can see you, you can't claim in an invasion of privacy. That's how it works in the legal system in the US and I think that's a good rule.

For the blacked out areas over military bases and such, that's fine. That's not public information to begin with, so I don't really have a problem with it.

For the general question, should information be limited, I don't believe it should be any more limited than it is. I think more stuff should be public, but realize that there is a line in matters of security, but most of what you see on the sites is anything a person walking down the street or looking down from a commercial plane could see.

[Phamex]

I don't have a problem with what Google Earth's doing. It's not like they're photographing anything people in the area wouldn't see everyday anyway. I guess people are just gonna have to be more careful about changing within view of an open window. :wink:
_________________