Slashdot Log In
Google Earth and "Collateral Damage"
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jan 15, 2007 01:57 AM
from the bad-with-the-good dept.
from the bad-with-the-good dept.
netbuzz writes "British news reports say insurgents are using Google Earth to pinpoint vulnerable targets within bases in Iraq. Could Google be doing more to prevent this? Should they be doing more? They certainly could explain more."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Yes Let's shut down the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet (Score:5, Funny)
How many people have to die before we realise that the Ordinance Survey and London street mapping should be stopped. Fortunately those saintly graffiti artists are already working on censoring maps in public places.
Then something IS wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm one of the AA guys. You know, those who in a war would get to jam a SA missile down someone's tailpipe or put a helluva lot of 30mm holes in a helicopter or low flying plane. Specialized troops too, with specialized (big) guns, lots of electronics and radar dishes, specialized training, etc, not your average infantry grunt.
But guess what? We had assault rifles too, and we were trained to use them too. We also did our own guard duty (in a visible guard tower, too), patrols, etc.
Not only that, but it was pretty much assumed and understood that in a pinch we could and would have to fulfill other roles too. We had our own light machineguns, our own rocket launchers in case we have to deal with a mess of tanks, we were trained to chuck a grenade, storm a hill, or dig a foxhole and defend that hill.
Wars aren't neatly organized affairs, and you don't always have exactly what you need in exactly the right place. And sometimes having exactly what you need of everything in every place is a waste of manpower and material. For example, you don't dig in two brigades of infantry around your big guns brigade, just so the big guns guys can be so ultra-specialized that they never have to touch an assault rifle. It's easier to just put them somewhere where normally they won't be assaulted, but if shit hits the fan and they do, they'll have to fight like everyone else. You also don't give them a company of infantry for guard duty, they get to post their own guards.
Also war isn't so neatly organized as to always have a designated target in advance. I know I wouldn't expect a designated airplane to surgically shoot and then go home, so I'm not sure why these guys would absolutely need a strategic target designated in advance. Most of war is dealing with unplanned stuff. Some guys appear from where you didn't expect. You shoot them. If you're a sniper or designated marksman, you do your best to put a hole in someone while the other guys pin them down. And add your own suppression factor, because the fear of a sniper ranks up there with fear of heavy machineguns in a fight, when it comes to keeping people with their head down.
So if you're telling me that US snipers are so ultra-specialized that they absolutely can't function as anything else, and can't possibly shoot anyone other than as strategic target designated in advance, then methinks the USA badly needs to rethink their training and logistics. But I doubt that the US military is _that_ inept, or that indeed officers coming from a military academy and various training courses would use Hollywood action movies to learn tactics from. It's a bit like saying that programmers use Hollywood movies to learn how to use a command line.
Being sent together with a squad of other soldiers, also isn't the end of the world like you make it sound. It's not being sent with a group of civilians, it's normal military procedure anywhere in the world. The designated marksmen, SAW guys, anti-tank guys, etc, actually train for that. Sure, a sniper rifle or designated marksman rifle isn't raw firepower, but it's not there as raw firepower in the first place. That's what the other soldiers around you are for. They'll do the spraying lead job. You do yours.
Now I'm as anti-war as it gets, and, yes, I'm against the war in Iraq. I could understand ideological or humanitarian reasons against it. But "waah, they're making me work together with a squad, like in Hollywood movies!" is just awful mis-understanding of basic military tactics.
Also, it seems to me like the apex of hypocrisy, if someone is indeed against war for oil and influence, to advocate instead being a hired assassin for some equally corrupt dictator or cocaine baron. At least the army does have some democratic checks (just vote against the guy sending them there), just taking money from the highest bidder doesn't have any
Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite frankly, if anyone's living in Hollywood dream world, it's you. I'd suggest enlisting in the Army to figure out how stuff really works. I'm guessing there'll be a rude awakening.
Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't let your hatred of the Bush Administration cloud your views. You, like many people, are unable to separate people from events from ideas. It wasn't just George Bush or Saddam Hussein who started the Iraqi War, nor was it 9/11 or Iraq ignoring UN mandates. You are trying to blame people or events instead of challenging ideas. Hence, you have no understanding of the underlying conflict, albeit in 2003 or now (which are completely different things).
The death of al Zarqawi didn't stop terrorism in Iraq because he was just a person. The crushing of the city of Fallujah didn't stop terrorism in Iraq because it was just an event. Genocide or democide, an idea, very well could stop terrorism (an idea) in Iraq. There are other possibilities that may occur and hopefully we don't need to see genocide or democide implemented (such as in Cambodia) nor politicide (such as in Vietnam after 1975).
We are currently fighting a war like we are playing a game of football. Each side is scoring 'goals' and claiming to be winning. Instead, a comprehensive campaign should be run. The Allies didn't win WWII because they killed more people than the Axis Powers (in fact, they killed fewer). They won because they were able to implement an effective campaign against the Axis Powers.
"War" vs. "This War" (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. While I personally have been opposed to the Iraq War from day one (well, before that, actually), I also get really annoyed at seeing glib statements like "War is not the answer" on bumper stickers. You know what, if a foreign power were carrying out a full-scale invasion of the US, war would be the answer.
While there are bona fide pacifists in the world (and I respect that position), it seems to me that there are a lot more people out there who cannot separate the concept of war from whatever current war we are fighting. I'm not certain if there is such a thing as a truly "just" war, but it's clear that some wars have better justification than others, and barring a genuine pacifist philosophy, they have to be evaluated differently.
Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Why stop with war? How about, if you're pro universal healthcare, you'd better be signing up for med school, or else you're a hypocrit. If you're not willing to become a doctor, you don't have the right to demand that doctors accept the payscale offered by the government healthcare agency. Or, even better, if you're pro-choice, you have to become an abortionist. If you think we need to do something about crime, you have to become a cop. If you want better public education, you have to become a teacher. Or maybe this whole line of reasoning is a stupid idea.
Newsflash--not everyone would make a good soldier, just like not everyone would make a good doctor, scientist, lawyer, mechanic, or whatever. Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage [wikipedia.org] makes it clear it's more efficient for people to do what they're best at. We have a volunteer army, and pretty much everyone signing up knows that in doing so, there is a chance they will be sent to war (possibly even a war they don't agree with). It's their choice to join, and they do so knowing that it's civilians that decide whether they'll be sent to war or not.
Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, if you are pro-life, you have to take care of a single mother's child. For the twenty years or so it takes to raise a child through college.
We have a volunteer army, and pretty much everyone signing up knows that in doing so, there is a chance they will be sent to war (possibly even a war they don't agree with). It's their choice to join, and they do so knowing that it's civilians that decide whether they'll be sent to war or not.
In this case, where people are using Google maps information to attack military installations, it seems that being a good soldier isn't what it used to be. It's not enough to be a good fighter, you need to be a good planner. The information Google gives out is available to everyone. Why don't the soldiers use it to plan their defense? They have a big advantage in that Google maps isn't updated that often, they could look at the images and plan how to booby trap the weak spots.
The military have had aerial reconnaissance at their disposal since the first balloons were invented. They have much better aerial imaging than Google gives out, they can see from which points their barracks may be attacked, where are the houses and alleys that can be used by eventual attackers.
No, this whole affair is a straw man, it's another convenient excuse being invented to create one more way to restrict information in the internet.
Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod Parent Down (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't realize there was one government body that controlled the internet. Nor did I realize that the military could retroactively shoot down satellites that have taken pictures of the Earth for years. Nor that it would suddenly be legal, under treaties most countries capable of shooting down satellites have signed, to start shooting down all satellites that "fly over" a warzone.
Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
On a somewhat related note, the Washington Post recently published an interesting Op-Ed [washingtonpost.com] written by Robert Kaiser, entitled "Topped By Hubris, Again". Or wait... perhaps they really do hate us because of our freedom.
Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet (Score:5, Informative)
This works great in the Netherlands. Here's [google.nl] our Ministry of Defense and this [google.nl] is the air force headquarters. If you can't see it on Google Maps, you can't bomb it. </sarcasm>
There's more of this nonsense, but these two are close to home for me.
Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet (Score:4, Funny)
Google News (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google News (Score:5, Insightful)
To this day, the U.S. military makes the same claims about Vietnam...
Re:Google News (Score:4, Informative)
I tend to agree that on a tactical and strategic level the war in Vietnam was successfully fought (not wisely fought, mind you, but even if we did manage to kill thousands of our own soldiers with dumb policies we still managed to get the job done on the battlefield in spite of ourselves). Now, the whole notion of limited war was dumb, and prevented the US from just cleaning up. Korea is a better example of what could have been achieved, but I'd hardly consider North Korea a great success story. And that brings up the bigger issue - if you want to get involved in foreign civil wars you're going to find that social change is a lot messier than just winning battles.
So, yes, in Vietnam the US probably didn't lose a single engagement, unless you count the decision to send troops in at all...
Re:Google News (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google News (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google News (Score:5, Informative)
Two points (Score:5, Insightful)
2) That said, it does seem reasonable that insurgents might be able to make use of Google Earth for some targeting information. Since the data is generally fairly stale, though, one wonders just how useful it would actually be.
Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)
Then jump in the car and drive to those locations and see how much they have changed in the last few years of being stale. I bet not much. BTW, how often does the courthouse change?
I guess most things would be static for several years past staleness of the photos. I'm not sure that military bases change the internal design much. I doubt they move the mess hall or sleeping tents around every 3 months. (they might, I don't know. But more importantly, hills hiding your point of attack from the view of guardsmen or some other obsticles like rivers with the only bridge 5 miles down stream and you have a good change of finding a place to launch an attack with somewhat acurate results and a decent change of getting away. I guess patrols with aircraft and a no-go zone could eliminate that for some locations.
Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)
Grid references, so the enemy is using GPS guided missiles now?
This is nothing more than a google bash.
Re:Two points (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Two points (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read up on the ideology of those mortal enemies a bit. Their "grievances" go back well before the liberation of Iraq or any actions of President Bush 2.0. In one of his statements immediately 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden talks about the sword reaching the US "after 80 years", referring to the breakup of the Ottomon Empire after WW1, at a time when the US was barely world power. Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's second-in-command, more or less) frames the Israeli/Palestinian dispute in terms of the "Al Andalus tragedy", the end of Moslem rule in southern Spain -- in 14-freaking-92. And while that's probably not a majority outlook, neither is it an isolated one. If Americans thought like this, the first thing we would have done upon perfecting the atomic bomb would have been to drop one on Buckingham Palace to get back at the British for burning the White House during the War of 1812. That's one basic problem: an inability to "get over it." Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we A-bomb'ed them, yet sixty years later we're the closest of allies. Germany conquered France, now those two nations are the core of the EU. Yet in the Middle East they're still upset about the Crusades.
This isn't a problem that started with Bush, nor will it end once he's gone. It's a war that's been going on, at a lower level of intensity, for quite a while -- the recent phase having begun in 1979. 9/11 was merely the first time something happened where people couldn't ignore it, and the Middle East military operations under Bush just the first time the US has attempted (whether you agree with how he's conducted it or not) to actually do something about it. It's going to continue, whether we try to influence the outcome or not, and the US will be a target. We're just too big to be ignored, given how ubiquitous our worldwide economic and cultural presence is.
Nor is this an exclusively a US, or even Western, problem. Or do you maintain that it's Bush's fault that Moslems are killing Buddhists in Thailand, Hindus in India, and animists in Darfur, whilst threatening to murder British authors [wikipedia.org], Danish cartoonists [wikipedia.org], and Dutch parliamentarians [wikipedia.org], and succeed in murdering a Dutch film-maker [wikipedia.org]?
Now, as to the original article about Google's maps and the idea of restricting them somehow, that seems pretty useless. Anything on Goggle Maps/Earth is derived from sources [google.com] which are publically (or at least commercially) available, anyway.
Re:Two points (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to break it to you but they were not iraqis.
"And when they blew up two of our embassies in Africa"
They were not iraqis either.
"And they hit the USS Cole with a missile named Studied Indifference?"
Still not the iraqis. Oh and it wasn't a missile either, it was a boat.
I know facts are kind of annoying but you should still try to place one or two in your post.
Re:Well stated. (Score:4, Informative)
You've set out the case for the war in Afghanistan, which was a retaliation against a government which harboured and financed Al Qaeda. Motives for the (entirely separate) Iraq war range from non-existent WMD to freeing the people to daddy's unfinished business, but there was no link between terrorism and Iraq until after the fall of Saddam's government.
Re:Well stated. (Score:4, Informative)
On Jan 29th, 2002, Bush named 3 countries as the "Axis of Evil" [wikipedia.org] - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Of those three countries:
Who'd we invade again?
At war (Score:5, Funny)
You know, invading some random country is one of the two main causes of getting "at war". The other is being invaded by some random country.
Re:Two points (Score:5, Interesting)
However, buildings don't move, and the insurgency in iraq, while predominatly made of Iraqi nationals, is most certainly far more mobile than any previous insurgency in recent memory. Simply put the iraqi's have cars. If you're an insurgent in one town, you can look at google earth, plot out where you want to go, set up, position, coordinate based on GPS locations etc.. with other people in another. I was thinking loosely about this problem where I live. I live in one city (~70K people), but really I don't know my way around any of the smaller towns that surround us, nor do I know my way around the biggest city near me (which is toronto nearly 150Km away). But, moving from place A to B is fairly easy, at least when I'm not crawling through the jungles of borneo or riding my camel through the middle of the desert. The resistance in Iraq can use GE just the same as any of us can use google earth to figure out where we're going.
With respect to the article specifically. The parking lots of Iraq's military installations, now in use by the British, probably haven't moved too far, nor have the suitable places for housing since those photos were taken. Given how long the occupation has been going on, those bases haven't moved and I somehow doubt the british army has been able to magically conjure up new places within the bases to put their tents, and even if google pictures are a year or two old those things are likely not all that much different.
With Google Earth a resistance fighter can see their way around rooftops, so long as the buildings are still standing, target things that don't move, or things that are consistently moved to and from the same place (like vehicles), and generally get a feel for what the terrain they are going to operate in looks like, and the layout. The fact that google earth might be somewhat out of date is less of a problem, if your information is wrong, you get killed, but it was better than nothing. Whereas the US/UK/FR/PRC/RUS would demand up the day satellite info to ensure maximum survivability of their soldiers, resistance movements tend to be more willing to make sacrificies.
In a broader sense, I think militaries and goverments will have to adapt their organization around satellite imagery. Right now they're all used to thinking only other people with spy satellites can see these things. Sure everyone has maps, but maps are no where near as useful as a satellite photo, even a crappy one. This probably means a lot more things in semi portable or easy to construct bunkers like they use for jet fighters.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
What more could they explain? (Score:5, Insightful)
And say what, exactly? Terrorists also use cars, do we ask carmakers to explain? Google earth is just a very nice fancy map, do we ask cartographers to explain?
What a pointless article.
Oh ya (Score:5, Insightful)
A logical solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
No use censoring this kind of data... (Score:4, Insightful)
And honestly, all this image censorship seems like a waste of time, because this kind of information could be discovered in such a large number of ways. Imagine just floating a balloon in the air with a camera atached and some GPS equipment? I guess the US could shoot every flying object out of the sky and then censor Google, but it's probably a lame solution... it's analogous (in my mind) to application security through obscurity.
I'd imagine the betters solution for the US is to 1) place their own tents over vulnerable points (if they like the security through obscurity solution) and to 2) cut back on those points of vulnerability. What the heck did we do during the cold war -- satellite weren't only a US technology....
Google's Duty... (Score:5, Insightful)
is to ensure that terrorists, insurgents, and other undesireables, shall not have access to information that is freely and publicly available through other channels anyway.
Perhaps they should recruit all of the ISPs in the developed world to aid them in carrying out this grave responsibility. If will all just signed affidavits of government loyalty and agreed to undergo extensive background checking prior to using the Internet or any Net enabled tools, the problem would be solved.In all seriousness, when did Google become charged with being the Internet Police? Isn't combating "terrorism" someone else's job, already?
I call BS (Score:5, Insightful)
The satellite photos Google uses are updated every few years at best. If the UK forces had left their tents in the same place for years, it's not Google they should have been worried about, it's their commanders. But I somehow doubt those tents were left intact for such a long time, so the Telegraph is dishing out a pile of BS here.
Time for physiological warfare (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is an article on the art of deception. I would love them to waste ammo and troups attacking the empty tents in the compound where all those inflatable tanks are.
http://www.psywarrior.com/DeceptionH.html [psywarrior.com]
Nintendo and iRobot are next! (Score:5, Funny)
duh (Score:4, Insightful)
You think if google earth didn't exist people wouldn't get this information? Well when they do you're going to be fscked and unprepared... It's like a real world analog for security through obscurity.
Disappointed journalist? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google is obviously in talks with the involved parties here.
It's just that they don't want to go public with all the details.
That honestly sounds good enough to me. The important part is that they're aware of the problem, not that they inform grumpy Google journalists of every little thing they're discussing internally. I think they don't deserve the negative spin on this in that article.
Google buys pictures, you can too (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the same clueless people assume this is all satellite imagery. The "good stuff" is actually lower level aerial photos shot from airplanes. Yep, someone flew right over the tops of those places and were paid to do so.
So, like most of the other "secrets" Google is blamed for revealing these pictures were already out there and available.
Hmm, I wonder if anyone in charge of security for those bases ever looked on Google Earth to see just what was visible? If investigators found printouts that showed vulnerable locations then those same vulnerabilities would have been visible to the security people. By seeing what was freely available to the outside world they could have taken precautions to reduce the risk.
Unless the attacks came just hours after new imagery was posted on Google Earth, then the security people screwed up royally.
Questionable Story (Score:4, Insightful)
Maps, whether Google Earth's or not, are useful for planning attacks in other ways. Maps can communicate where to meet, where to plant bombs, where convoys will travel, etc. But, Google probably does not have the only maps of Iraq that Iraqis can get. What are we supposed to do? Ban all maps from civilians?
What a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets ban maps! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:*Insurgents* (Score:5, Insightful)
However in Iraq, the US and UK would like nothing better than to leave, but feel a responsibility to insure stability after the mess we caused (in one set of rhetoric), or to secure freedom for the people (in another set of rhetoric.) The insurgent forces are not fighting to remove a foreign dictatorship, or if they think they are they're doing a really bad job of it. What they're doing, at least as best as I can tell, is to insure that the new government is their groups government, or, at risk of sounding self important, to stick it to US because they don't like us and our policies on Israel and other various issues.
Obviously it's a much more complex issue, we are trying to impose our own idea of order, and put up people in power that we can at least stand. However, it seems to me, though I'm biased, that the basic differences are there and important.
Words Have Meaning (Score:5, Insightful)
A resistance movement is seeking to oust a foreign occupying power to restore the previous ruling power. Now, it is true that Iraq has resistance movements trying to kick out Americans and restore the Baathist to power, but they do not actually make up all or even a majority of the fighters in Iraq. Shiite militias and Al-qaeda are not seeking to restore the Baathist.
Insurgent is a broader term. An insurgent on the other hand is someone who takes up arms against the current governments authority. That is a term that describes almost all of the fighters in Iraq. Iraq fighters are not just fighting occupation. They are fighting other militia groups, the government, and some times just indulging in good old fashion ethnic cleansing. Doing any of the above is defying the authority of the current government, hence they are insurgents.
As far as to why we don't call them freedom fighters, it is because Blair and Bush (and most Western folks for that matter) don't consider Baathist trying to restore an Arab fascist government, Shiites trying to ethnically cleanse the Sunnis, or Al-qaeda trying to create a theocratic state and ethnically cleanse Shiites on the side to really fall under any (western) definition of "freedom fighting".
If it makes you feel better, and I am sure it will because you are clearly suffering from a sever case of moral relativism, I imagine that if the Soviets had invaded the US or Britain, they would have called us insurgents and not freedom fighters also.
Re:*Insurgents* (Score:4, Insightful)
A good portion of the insurgents are not iraqi people. Notice i didn't say all. Blowing up the people you fighting for doesn't neccesarily make on thier side. The Iraqi citizens have also been given an out err a peacfull way of getting us out.
We have set up a government, elected by thier own people, charted a constitution by thier own people with the public voting and participating in the process. We have said publicly that we are leaving as soon as the new Iraq can defend itself reasonable and provide for the security of thier own people. We have ensured that there is a proccess for people to make changes to both the government and the laws. There is the out.
Now, here is why they are insurgents. We achived our goal of outing the dictator and gave Iraq back to it's people. The resistance don't want it. They refuse to stop fighting and allow us to leave. They refuse to take control of the government by the proccess put in place that represent the majority of the population. They blow up people who are doing nothing more then providing food and shelter for thier family (not even helping the "invaders") then they blow up a second device in an attempt ti kill anyone giving medical help to these inocent civilians that became wounded. They just want to kill people and blame it elswhere.
A resistance wouldn't do someting like this. the french resistance didn't go around blowing up wine shops with no german soldiers around and yell, "that will teach them germans!". They didn't goto weddings and blow up the reception knowing no one there has done anything besides get married. They didn't blow up churches just because they were a different religion then thiers (albiet a small difference). A resitance attacks military targets. Targets that have value to the oposing force. A resistance comunicates troop movement and level to others and aids those attempting to help the resitance.
What we have is a blood thirsty group of people who entire goal is to strike terror into the citizens by any means neccesary. They are killing because of some religous zealotry and a terrorist agenda. they are common criminals and nothing more. You don't kill inocent people to scare them. Thats what every evil powerr has done in war and they were labeled evil and it was deemed wrong. There is no valor in killing for fun or because you can and that what these insurgents are doing.
Could Google be doing more? (Score:5, Funny)
They could add arrows: "This way to the Secret Bunker." [beautifulbritain.co.uk]