The article I chose for this week's blog comes from cnn.com and it reminds me of some of the issues raised in Little Brother. The article explains a debate on whether or not aerial images that are posted online endanger national security.
Two men Scott Portzline and Joel Anderson want Internet map services need to blur or remove images of sensitive sites. They feel that these sites can be used by terrorists to chose targets and plan attacks. Portzline says without leaving his home he can take a virtual tour of the nation's 66 nuclear power plants. They feel these sites are unnecessarily detailed. Another concern is that terrorists used online mapping programs to plan the Mumbai attacks in Indian last November.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner says that regulating aerial imagery of sensitve infrastructure is impossible and problemate. "Who defines what is sensitive?" he says.
Here is the link to the aritcle: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/05/aerial.images.security/index.html
This article reminded a lot about what was going on in Little Brother, by Cory Doctrow. While they are different situations the question remains the same how far do we go to infringe on American's civil liberties to ensure national security ? What do you think about this article? How would you feel if these images are removed or blurred out ?
I also thought this was an interesting quote from the article another take on national security. An author and terror expert Brian Jenkins said. "People think of security in physical terms, barriers, walls, fences. But myster--that is, creating uncertainity in the minds of would-be adversaries--is an importnat component of security. This (imagery) takes away that uncertianity . It removes all mystery"
This quote makes sense to me, but still is it enough to take away my rights. To me my rights are my security. I mean I may never want to look up the site of nuclear power plants, but I like having the feeling I can do so if I choose too. What do you think abou this quote does it change your mind in anyway ?
I also wrote a blog entry for this week that reminded me of Little Brother. This is a very interesting debate! I can see why people think it's their right to have the aerial image accessible online, but I also see the case that it could be dangerous. I want my freedoms, but I also want to be safe! I'll have to think more about this. Thanks for letting us know about this topic.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting, yet scary article. I too enjoy having the right to access online Aeriel images when need be. But I also never thought about how this type of freedom/access could be used in a way to harm people. With that being said I'm somewhat unsure about having access to this type of information or blurring/blocking the images. I would like to read about the advantages & disadvantages concerning this important topic. But I must say it's sad that we live in a world where we as Americans have to be careful of the information made available for public use...
This is a great article, as aerial images services like Google Earth raise privacy concerns, but the blurring of such imagery bring up censorship issues also. The Three Mile nuclear plant doesn't seem to have a problem with the photos, as they indicate that their security protects against terrorist who have even more information than what they can find on the internet. This may be a case of extreme paranoia on the part of those supporting the state bill to blur images. Also, included in the bill is a prohibition on unblurred pictures of "schools, churches, government buildings, and medical facilities." I think that is taking things to the extreme, since some of that infrastructure is never under heavy security anyway. I also don't like how Anderson reduces this issue to a techno-geek vs. everyone else argument, saying "Techno-geeks hate it because they don't want any kind of limit on anything."
ReplyDelete