Google Earth, not the real enemy
Today, Google Earth and other similar online 3D geobrowsers allow the public to become “amateur spies”. From the tip of our mouse, we can zoom into our neighbor’s back yard or even descend upon Pearl Harbor and observe the US fleet. By allowing anyone with a laptop and a wi-fi connection to view fairly detailed satellite and aerial imagery of just about anywhere on the globe, Google Earth and the other user friendly geobrowsers have revolutionized reconnaissance at the level of the individual. Only several decades ago, the militaries and spy agencies of the World would have done anything to keep such software far away from the public and from each other. In the words of Colonel James Brown, “who heads force protection and mission assurance at U.S. Northern Command in Colorado Springs” Google Earth “is the best preoperational surveillance tool [he’s] ever seen in [his] life”(Weinberger, 2008). One can’t help but to ask, why is this still legal?
Several governments including the US have come to see a certain risk in having aerial and satellite imagery of their national territory available for everyone to see. The Indian Government has blamed Google Earth in aiding terrorist’s carry out the Mumbai attack in 2008. China has also used the national security card to try to cover up sensitive imagery of prisons. Many agree that the fundamental problem with the geobrowser is that it has “absolutely no control to prevent misuse or limit access” (Rhys Blakely, 2008, paragraph 12).
Yet why are the images still on the web? The fact of the matter is that Google Earth imagery is not the most accurate geographic data available. GeoEye for instance sells “commercial satellite imagery” of “Iran’s nuclear sites, CIA headquarters, even the top secret Air Force testing site, Area 51, in Nevada” (Weinberger, 2008, paragraph 3)Furthermore, if it were not for Google Earth, terrorists could just use regular maps or even get hold of imagery through the black market. Google Earth’s imagery may be very accurate but the data is not displayed as real time, as a matter of fact, the images are quite outdated. Google Earth is a tool and cannot possibly assume the blame for the wrongdoing of individuals or groups.
Finally, Google Earth has the potential to play a role of check and balance, necessary to maintaining democracy and its values. We can keep our governments in check and maintain transparency to a certain extent. Governments and the people are to decide what should be the limit, security being a priority, but never over freedom.
References
Rhys Blakely, 2008, Google Earth accused of aiding terrorists, The Sunday Times Online
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5311241.ece
Kelly Hearn, 2007, Terrorist Use of Google Earth Raises Security Fears, National Geographic News
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070312-google-censor_2.html
Sharon Weinberger, Can You Spot the Chinese Nuclear Sub? Discover:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/21-can-you-spot-the-chinese-nuclear-sub/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
Are there in facts steps that Google Earth could take – additional protection measures, delays in updating photographs, or other controls – that could effectively continue the free flow of information but also improve the perceptions and accusations that Google Earth is “aiding terrorists”? You wisely balance these perceptions with facts around Google Earth’s “accuracy”, timeliness and other limitations vs hard-core black-market satellite imagery – it would interesting for you to explore further if there are means by which Google Earth could progress that moreso with advanced measures.
Sebastien, you make your topic about how Google Earth empowers users with the role of a watchdog very clear. However, you might want to add another perspective about how terrorists may use Google Earth since I think the US is more concerned with the information getting into the hands of terrorists rather than the average internet user. Convention wise, I think your introduction was especially moving and the use of quotes was integrated very well into your paper. I also like the use of the rhetorical question at the end of the first paragraph. A couple points I wanted to bring up though: I thought the last paragraph didn’t serve too well as the conclusion, the close statement was good but I feel the paragraph did not fully unite the rest of the paper. Also the introduction paragraph doesn’t really move from general to specific. Overall, I think you did a fine job with the paper!
Those who support the right of citizens to carry guns in this country argue that “Guns don’t kill people; people do.” You offer essentially the same argument to justify the unrestricted access to Google Earth images of potential terrorist targets. Opponents of the “guns don’t kill” argument counter with statistics that correlate shooting deaths with the nearly unrestricted availability of guns. What evidence can you marshal to support your argument that “Google Earth is a tool and cannot possibly assume the blame for the wrongdoing of individuals or groups,” which might be paraphrased as “Google Earth images don’t commit evil acts of violence; terrorists do”?
In the US, every year, about 10,000 murders are committed with guns or firearms (Murder Victims, by Weapons Used, Feb 2011), 2000 with knives, 1000 with blunt objects such as hammers and about 1000 through strangulation and arson (Crime Statistics, Feb 2011, nationmaster.com). This represents a great loss in human life and reflects real societal problems. On the other hand, in Europe, where the gun culture is not prevalent and where there exists restrictions on gun ownership and use, the death rate is considerably lower. Guns kill and I will not attempt to deny this, I myself am opposed to the right to bear arms as I believe that it is both a security threat and in conflict with the principle of state monopoly on violence. However guns are intrinsically weapons, they were built to kill and harm and are very efficient at doing so. All it takes is to pull the trigger and practically anyone can use one without much difficulty. Knives, hammers, even our bare hands can be used as weapons and the numbers support this claim. Should we therefore ban knives, hammers and other tools altogether? They serve different and more important and useful functions other than killing or hurting and the wrongdoing that is committed with their help is far outweighed by the good that they have contributed to technological development and to humanity. Similarly, even if Google Earth is occasionally an accomplice to evil, it far more often serves for good and the betterment of mankind.
Google Earth however was not built in the intention of harming and it is simply not a weapon of any considerable importance. The geographic imagery is not in real-time, as a matter of fact it is very outdated. Sensitive zones such as military bases or government facilities are blurred and better imagery of any location on earth can be bought directly from private firms such as GeoEye. How many people die each year because of Google Earth? How much material damage does this software cause? The skeptical and paranoid seem to exaggerate the threat of this software claiming that it has helped terrorists orchestrate big terror attacks such as the Mumbai attacks in 2008. The truth is that had it not been for Google Earth a simple GPS system or sophisticated maps would have sufficed to plan such an attack.
Instead of focusing on the danger of a software and it’s ability to be used as a weapon or not, it is important to understand the reason behind such acts of violence. Why are terrorists targeting us and how to stop this problem at the source is a more sustainable and efficient approach to stopping terror rather that evaluating the risks of Google Earth. In recent times, medias have used Google Earth as a scapegoat in order to attract the public’s attention. It is clearly a more interesting topic that poverty, social inequality and ignorance, the true sources of violence in our societies. The only way to truly combat violence is to stop it at its source by creating better opportunities for the people by investing in education and reducing inequalities.
Murder Victims, by Weapons Used, Feb 2011, infoplease.com
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
Crime Statistics, Feb 2011, nationmaster.com
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
Excellent response, Sebastien. Starting with data showing that restriction of gun ownership in Europe does indeed correlate with lower death rates, you cleverly seguéd into arguments that differentiate between the uses of guns and software: 1) Guns are designed to kill, but Google Earth is designed to enlighten; 2)The good accomplished by Google Earth far exceeds any unintended negative consequences; and 3) To reduce acts of terrorism, it’s more effective to reduce the reasons for terrorism than to reduce the availability of satellite images. As for the scapegoating of Google by the media, it seems that Google has been pretty good at responding effectively to criticism.