Google Earth's blurred out image of the White House
There has been an age old battle between the spread of information and the security of a nation. Google Earth, a virtual globe that provides free, high quality satellite pictures of almost any geographic location in the world is one of the newest sites of this conflict. Increasingly, governments are getting wary over the revelatory and open nature of Google Earth. With such high quality images available to anyone, governments are worried Google Earth will be used as a tool against them, however, after a closer inspection, it becomes evident that this is a false assumption.
At the basis of this issue lies an interesting claim that many do not realize: Google Earth has no actual classified or restricted images (Swartz, 2006). Indeed, the pictures available on Google Earth are probably available to nearly any major government in the world. With the widespread usage of satellite imagery by modern security agencies, it is almost guaranteed that the images have already been seen and examined by security experts within each nation. It becomes clear that governments should not be worried about other governments using Google Earth against them, but rather, they should be worried about the implications of public usage.
It has become increasingly obvious that the public demands to see and know more about their government. In our post-Wikileak, internet active society, governments can no longer hide information from the general public. Instead of worrying about security risks, governments should use this newfound transparency as a way to inspire confidence among the populace. Even in the event of a security risk, there are safeguards in play. Areas that are of special importance are blurred out and images are not allowed to be bought from commercial vendors at least 24 hours after they are released (Swartz, 2006).
There is only one real risk involved with Google Earth- the threat of terrorist usage. The Mumbai bombings as well as suicide bombings in Iraq have been linked to Google Earth (Blakelely, 2008). Using Google Earth as a planning and reconnaissance tool, terrorists have adapted the Google Earth to their own ends.
Although Google Earth has obvious negatives, we should not do anything to change it. Our tech savvy, internet active and curious population has grown to expect such transparency from world governments. Rather than adopt measures like China and India to create their own programs, governments of the world should instead embrace this new geographic information revolution (Eisler, 2008).
References:
Blakely, R. (2008, December 9). Google Earth accused of aiding terrorists. Times Online Retrieved from http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5311241.ece
Eisler, P. (2008, November 7). Google Earth Helps Yet Worries Government. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-11-06-googleearth_N.htm
Swartz, N. (2006). Google Earth Scares Governments. Information Management Journal 40(2), 20.
Dawei,
The flow of your paragraphs is good – however I’d recommend adding a blank line between them so there’s a visual break between the words.
“Rather than adopt measures like China and India to create their own programs,” – this is an interesting comment and I’d like to hear more about that in the paper.
Good job with the message and references.
The author’s point is clearly shown in the last sentence of the first paragraph, which he then qualifies and extends upon in the following paragraphs. There are two main points, that governments are worried about the public having access to the information in Google Earth, as well as terrorists. There is good use of evidence to refute the government’s worry of the public, the best point of which comes right after the thesis: “Google Earth has no actual classified or restricted images.” Using this, the author draws a great conclusion that this new technology can be used to a government’s advantage when dealing with its people.
This leaves the final argument concerning terrorists, which merely points out that they utilize Google Earth as well. This evidence needs to be expanded on, showing that while terrorists do use virtual globes, they do not provide much of an advantage given the age of the images combined with the dynamic nature of many potential targets. Perhaps the author could go into greater detail on this point. Beyond that, the post is written well, using pictures to back up one of his points.
Freedom of information and access has historically come with one of three reactions – you do a great job of describing the traditional two (completely free access to whatever is available in the public realm; and the complete opposite, the control limits as imposed by China and India)… and you tiptoe toward the third which has to do with the means of limiting the immediacy of that access (the 24hr hold rule). It would be interesting for you to take these comments a bit further in terms of policy and security implications by considering what actions might be considered either by Google Earth or by governments and corporations as potential clients of Google Earth? What if Google Earth adopted a business model akin to the media metrics around paid search and buying/promoting/measuring search term usage on the internet? This might take your great observations to the realm of controllables, tracking methods for “searching” or linking Google Earth searches for security measures.
The author makes a compelling argument that governments should not try to resist the growing availability of geographic information. This point is particularly clear in the final paragraph. The author effectively analyzes both sides of the argument and in the process addresses a possible counterargument. On one hand, the public benefits from increased government transparency. On the other hand, there is the “threat of terrorist usage” of the geographic information. The author makes good use of evidence to reinforce his ideas.
Some of the points in this post can be expanded upon. More details would help in the discussion of the Chinese and Indian programs. Additionally, the author could provide a more in-depth analysis of the use of Google Earth by terrorists rather than writing it off as strictly an “obvious negative.”