Bill Would Blur Online Mapping Features

[The Straight Story]

Bill Would Blur Online Mapping Features

SACRAMENTO, CA - A San Diego lawmaker wants to require Internet browsers such as Google who provide online mapping tools to the public to blur certain types of photographs and images now available.

AB 255 would require that aerial and satellite photographs and images of schools, places of worship, government and medical buildings and facilities be obscured so as not to make them recognizable. The measure also includes barring street-view photographs and images of said buildings.

The bill's author, Joel Anderson, R-El Cajon, maintains that security is at risk when making such photographs and images available to anyone with access to online mapping providers.

AB 255 calls for fines of $250,000 daily for violators.

Anderson said the bill's wording has not been finalized. It may be introduced in committee in the next week.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=56124&catid=2

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. if that were to pass they would just take it offline

oh well...so much for finding my way around...

sP

[CreekDog]

2. so every picture of a church building would be illegal?

:eyes:

braniac. :banghead:

[anigbrowl]

3. El stupido. It won't pass. nt

[PeaceNikki]

4. Churches and public offices post images of their facilities online themselves.

Would they be bound to this as well?

:confused:

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. That journalist actually thinks google is a browser?

Seriously, when will journalism become a place for smart, intelligent, lucid people again?

This sentence as well is an abomination: "AB 255 would require that aerial and satellite photographs and images of schools, places of worship, government and medical buildings and facilities be obscured so as not to make them recognizable."

Idiots.

It's also a fucking stupid bill, and R-Joel Anderson should be hit with a great big sheet of plywood until he gets smart.

[damntexdem]

6. The GOP -- always against transparency in anything and everything.

And this is a state representative proposing a state bill. Why in the world would Google pay any attention?

[Liberal In Texas]

7. Another stupid Repuke idea.

Folks, they're trying like crazy to dumb the internet down and by extension, us.

[SoCalDem]

10. But..but... Zillow always shows my crappy back yard

that has to be the reason my home value dropped $200K :rofl:

just blur my yard...m'kay.. or at least photoshop in a cabana & sparkling blue pool :)

[Liberal In Texas]

11. Our taxing dist. has ground photos online available to anyone of every building and house

in Dallas county, and aerials that are not Google satellite images.

I suppose this idiot wouldn't like that either.

Maybe he would mind if you could post a photoshop your house on Zillow to make it look better!

[XemaSab]

13. Or photoshop out the neighbors' meth house

:banghead:

[alphafemale]

8. Run! Run! Hide! Hide! What a bunch of silly, frightened ninnies Repubs are. nt

[Tesha]

9. A terraist would *NEVER* hire a small plane and take photos...

nor would they buy quality aerial photography or satellite
imagery from a commercial provider.

And they wouldn't obtain the imagery from any government
entity, foreign or domestic, either.

If they couldn't get it from Google, they'd just give up.

Tesha

[Thor_MN]

14. Couldn't a evilduer just,... go there?

Maybe he wants everyone to bow their heads as they pass a church. Can't do acts of terra if you can't see your target.

[kentauros]

12. Assuming such an idiot idea were to pass

it would put many small engineering firms out of business. One like the company I work for where we rely on both free- and fee-based imagery for our mapping. Not to mention how that would hurt all the image-supplying companies out there.

Besides, all any would-be "terrorist" has to do is set up a fake company, call themselves engineers, and start ordering to their hearts' content. Aerial images like that are of a far higher resolution than anything you can get online for free. Although some free sites offer better resolution than Google, there aren't many that do that.

But, here's a taste of what's available for images and other mapping information (just a few of the more interesting ones from my work bookmarks.)

http://www.skypic.com
http://jomidav.aldavies.net/SovietMaps/SampleMaps.htm
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps
http://unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat
http://eros.usgs.gov/products/aerial
http://gisdata.blogspot.com
http://www.vterrain.org/Imagery/sources.html
http://libremap.org
http://www1.nga.mil/Pages/Default.aspx
http://www.vterrain.org

I have hundreds more. Probably not many all that useful to most people (like some of the above links) but all easily found with simple searches. ESRI, the makers of ArcGIS, also have some amazing imagery for download from their site, too.

It figures it'd be a Republican taking such a simplistic attitude towards what mapping covers. Then again, I doubt he knows what GIS stands for, either ;)
(Geographic Information Systems)

[uppityperson]

15. My neighborhood is already blurred. Should I be afraid, or maybe I'm a church