Twitter
TechWatching
LikedThis
RodEdwards.ca
HDDb.netTSG on Google Maps as a Terror Tool
The Smoking Gun has an article on the use of Google Maps/Earth by prospective terrorists as a tool to scout out locations and vulnerabilities, found via TechMeme.
Should Google be censoring maps? Or reducing zoom levels over airports? Is Google responsible for the actions its tools may enable?
In a nutshell, IMHO, no. The people running airports are responsible for thier facilities, not Google. If terrorists can find vulnerabilities via Google Earth, the only question that should be asked is why the facility managers aren’t finding them first. Use the tools, people.
I agree with you completly - if other people can find your vulnerabilities well, so can you. Fix them.
This post makes me think of a story I read somewhere: in some countries, it is illegal to have detailed maps without a licence of sorts. And then enter google maps. Not sure what that means for any such laws.
(not entirely sure that some counntries do have such laws)
This is something that can be argued either way. While we all generally subscribe to the notion that information wants to be free, the fact remains that there are installations upon which detailed information shouldn’t be too easy to attain.
It’s all well and good to debate these issues from an academic perspective, but we can all easily see that security issues have consequences in the real world. Kayliz’s comment, while well meaning does expose a slight recklessness about the idea that facilities managers and security personnel should be forced into a race to find vulnerabilities before anyone with bad intentions does through the use of zero cost consumer grade technologies.
I’ll make the assumption that Google’s employees wish no bad to come from the use of their services, so why shouldn’t they take this seriously as a matter of corporate risk management? What would happen to Google’s market capitalization if it was found that a major terrorist attack was planned through their services?
It’s almost reflexive to think that government and business are at odds with one another, but in reality they have more to gain by working together not to censor but to use self restraint… “because I can” is never a better answer than “because I should” when considering the real implications of making information like this available.
Jeff, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. To be honest, I took the position I posted to spur discussion as much as anything - though I believe it in principal, I’ll also acknowledge that there are practical considerations.
My wife and I had a spirited debate on this topic last night too; coming from the transportation sector, she could see how the increasing availability of information could pose a threat; “security through inaccessibility” has been removed when Google makes visible what was previously difficult to discern.
I would agree with the “self-restraint” position: i.e.: don’t zoom in deeply over airports, etc.
Then again, where do you draw the line? What if the VA-tech shooter had used GMaps to plot his path that day? Should Google pre-emptively obscure maps of high-schools and universities? What about private residences? How many break-ins have been enabled by criminals looking for yards without fences? Etc?
In the discussion of any kind of censorship, its difficult to know where to draw the line, which is why I default to the “no censorship” rule. i.e.: If it can’t be executed objectively, it shouldn’t be executed.
The drawing of the line is the slippery slope, isn’t it?
We live in a world that where gray and imperfect is the norm, which is why I generally don’t agree with the notion that if a system can’t be cleanly and precisely implemented then don’t do it at all.
Where should the line be drawn? How about starting with military installations (which is already prohibited), power generation and distribution facilities, transportation centers, refineries, and major public infrastructure (e.g. dams). It’s really not that hard to start somewhere.