How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal) [LWN.net]

Linux Journal covers an effort to blur Google maps to preserve (US) national security. "Could a skilled bad guy glean a lot of information from Google Earth or similar system? Sure. Just like you or I can plot out a route to maximize our walking time or minimize our commute. I would argue that I could get better information from a 7.5 minute quadrangle because it would also include the ability to generate points that I could enter into my GPS for turn-by-turn directions. But until we actually go through the motions, it is just static data. And I would suggest that the attackers in Mumbai, once they planned their route on paper, walked, rode and photographed any number of things that were not available publicly."

to post comments

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 17, 2009 20:51 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (4 responses)

Terrorists using Goggle maps is a kinda a bizzare bit of security fantasy. It's like something you'd read in a book or see in a movie.

It's like how people are trying to crack down on people taking pictures at airports or something like that. Like terrorists need to go around and take photographs of the airplanes they are going to hijack or something equally weird.

It's like people just assume that these sort of things are going to be issues without actually thinking to deeply about it because it made sense in some movie.

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 17, 2009 20:52 UTC (Tue) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link]

I am surprised the same folks you refer to do not try their hand at cartoon physics... on second thought, maybe they should.

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 17, 2009 21:02 UTC (Tue) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link]

It's perhaps not -quite- as crazy as that. Google Maps/Google Earth has been used to locate ancient meteorite impact craters and long-lost archaeological sites, so could (in principle) be used to find deliberately concealed sites that are quite invisible from the surface. This is a stretch, I'll accept that, but it is at least theoretically possible and would theoretically provide information not otherwise available. Is it likely? No. Is it useful to attackers? No. It may be vaguely informative, but that doesn't make it useful. The number of false positives will be so high that I can't see this being remotely viable. Is it even the vector being talked about as a threat? No. The vector under discussion is even less useful and is even less likely to be used. Please bear in mind that these are the same organizations that tried to pressure Portland, Oregon, into dropping free mass transit within the city on the grounds terrorists could use it. (Exactly why terrorists couldn't afford a $2 ticket, which is purchased anonymously from a machine, was never explained. And given the city is rather tiny, why they would need mass transit at all.)

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 18, 2009 1:29 UTC (Wed) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] (1 responses)

Like terrorists need to go around and take photographs of the airplanes they are going to hijack or something equally weird.

Oh, you mean like JI terrorists videoing buildings they intended to bomb in Singapore in 2001. The idea being that the bomb maker wouldn't be exposed to security camera footage and so would remain undetected and available for future havoc.

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 18, 2009 13:09 UTC (Wed) by ledow (guest, #11753) [Link]

The critical word in that comment was "need". They don't *need* to have a photo, or video, or stand there in person, or get someone else to do it. It probably doesn't even help that much. What do you think they did? Adjusted the bomb design to better blow up the building? Highly doubtful when "slap another 1kg on" will solve all those problems for you, and the information gathered from such exterior photos is *miniscule* (design, construction, thickness, material, it doesn't help you discover anything about the *actual* structure of the thing you're photographing, except possibly layout).

And, let's not be thick now... the bombmaker could happily stroll past any building they wanted and notice enough to do their deed (i.e. layout) to the same level, getting picked up on every camera along the way... it doesn't mean that anyone *knows* it's the bombmaker ("Oh, look, this man wandered past three months before the bombings and paused briefly to tie his shoe - PRIME SUSPECT!").

The point is that anybody using Google Maps and/or some third-party photographer (who could well be innocent - I could *hire* a photographer to photograph a building, I took a photo in London the other day of my friend in front of a famous London landmark - do I now need permission from the Goverment to do that?) to provide *vital* information without which they could not attack is either a) extremely incompetent and thus going to be detected/hindered in a million and one other ways or b) doesn't exist. I'm going for B here.

This information is already in the public domain. How do I know that? Because I just walked past a building and I could see it. It's like the "analog hole" for real-life. If I can see it, I can see it. I don't need to photograph it. I can even see it from down the street with a child's pair of binoculars, or from a mile away with a suitable telescope (both of which are "more risky" than just casually walking past but the day when people start getting banned from owning binoculars or telescopes because they might use them to spy on buildings, we have bigger problems that Google Maps...). Until you can restrict *those* methods of image capture (i.e. force people into blindfolds for public buildings, put up a big, black wall around every sensitive installation, etc.), blocking photos or aerial maps is a waste of time.

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 17, 2009 22:31 UTC (Tue) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]

Goggle maps, hah.

The goggles, they do nothing!

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 17, 2009 23:55 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] (1 responses)

So, some nitwit politician wants to blurr Google maps. That hardly warrants the title of this article, or much of any comment.

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 18, 2009 0:01 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Exactly. What on earth does it have to do with open source anyway? Google
Maps isn't open source software!

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 18, 2009 7:03 UTC (Wed) by jku (subscriber, #42379) [Link]

In my opinion the article isn't worth the time: there is little learn in there, and the forced open source connection makes it look like the author didn't really think things through before writing...

The book referenced in the title, however, really is worth reading. How to Lie with Maps has new things for both the layman and the GIS pro, mostly presented in an arresting way.

How to Lie with Maps: When Open Source and National Security Collide (Linux Journal)

Posted Mar 18, 2009 16:04 UTC (Wed) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

This is totally absurd.

When Cryptography and Kerckoff collide?

There IS NO National Security which could collide with Open Source/Information. If it collides, its hogwash, snake oil, propaganda; but has nothing to do with security.