Chuck Schumer Tells Apple and Google To "Curb Your Spy Planes" 302
mk1004 writes with news from The Register that U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York has written to Apple and Google regarding their use of 'military-grade spy planes.' The Senator claims concerns ranging from voyeurism to terrorism. Suggested protections: Warn when areas are going to be imaged, give property owners the right to opt out, and blurring of individuals. Schumer seems happy enough, though, with the more detailed versions of such surveillance being in the hands of law enforcement agencies, and phrases his complaint to emphasize what he perceives as risks to infrastructure brought about by detailed maps that anyone can browse: "[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It is no coincidence (Score:5, Funny)
Warning people before is a terrible idea. I don't like the prospect of seeing people spreading their buttcheeks to the sky on every single map that's availible.
Re: (Score:3)
Whats Up Chuck? (Score:5, Funny)
So what is Chuck doing in his back yard that he doesn't want everyone to see, hmmm????
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno exactly, but it's bigger than 4 inches.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously his desire to remain private is admission of guilt. TSA rules, anyway.
Re:Whats Up Chuck? (Score:5, Funny)
All we're asking for is a simple yes or no: did Chuck Schumer fuck a dog to death in 1990? We're just /asking questions/. Why can't the senator put this to rest?
Re: (Score:3)
Security by obscurity? (Score:2)
Come on there must be better way... Perhaps by having a raid array of the appropriate infrastructure?
Re:Security by obscurity? (Score:5, Informative)
Plus, if you want a complete map of the water infrastructure, you can just asked the water company and they will /give/ it to you.
Re:Security by obscurity? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can ask, but you can't get it. At least not here.
We purchased ArcGIS to evaluate our responses at the fire department I work for. The county, highway department, assessors office, and other 911 centers were more than happy to share data with us. The water company wouldn't. We were originally told their security policy would not allow them to share data with us.
That's right. The water company could not tell the fire department where the fire hydrants are because of security policy.
Total WTF moment...
Re: (Score:3)
No no no, you see that would make sense. The government at no point whatsoever should attempt to make sense, if making of sense is found to have happened it must be destroyed ASAP.
I as an independent citizen must also not have access to water company information before I dig, because that too would make sense, hence the river through my backyard when a neighbor (who *did* call first) ruptured an 8 inch main.
If I was a terrorist, planning on causing a pressure fault in one segment of water service while ind
Re: (Score:3)
fear everything! (Score:5, Insightful)
let's completely ignore the societal and economic benefits of such technology because ... fear, people. Fear.
Re:fear everything! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah.. give corporations the same rights as governments. That always works out for the best.
Re:fear everything! (Score:5, Informative)
Private individuals as well as corporations have been doing areal photography for private use since around 1860.
Re: (Score:2)
*Aerial photography.
Damn typo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
*Areola photography.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah yeah but where is the areola photography?
Re: (Score:3)
google image search areola and you shall find what you seek.
Re: (Score:3)
So the highly detailed aerial photography is just fine, as long as it's not available to the masses?
Please remember that you can get detailed aerial photos of anywhere in the US for a fee, excluding classified places such as Area 22-C.
Re: (Score:3)
Give corporations the same rights as any other group of people, no more and no less.
Re: (Score:3)
Only the government has the right to take pictures from the air? What constitution are you reading?
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly somebody has clearly not been watching Continuum.
Re: (Score:2)
But since corporations can influence the government to use guns to force you to comply with their plans I would have to say that they are even more dangerous than the government on their own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
... too bad you didn't study what happened in countries with weak central governments and strong individuals/corporations.
I tried. I even ordered the textbook, but the pages were ripped out and replaced with a Monsanto seed catalog.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post just seems like a nihilist form of advocacy for authoritarianism, like a fascist Eeyore. "Can't win; guess we might as well have a dictator and fake elections 'cause at least it's better than being run by corporations. OOOOO-kay."
Re:fear everything! (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, governments, wether they be state, federal, county, whatever, don't have "rights." They have powers. It's a big difference -- human beings have rights because of natural law, or social acceptance, or convention; they aren't contingent and cannot be revoked. Government power is always contingent, even if they put guns to everyone's heads -- which is actually an indicator of a very weak government, not a powerful one.
Well said, loyal consumer! For your grassroots advocacy, you have earned an extra allotment of scrip to spend at the company store!
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, governments, wether they be state, federal, county, whatever, don't have "rights." They have powers. It's a big difference -- human beings have rights because of natural law, or social acceptance, or convention; they aren't contingent and cannot be revoked. Government power is always contingent, even if they put guns to everyone's heads -- which is actually an indicator of a very weak government, not a powerful one.
Well said, loyal consumer! For your grassroots advocacy, you have earned an extra allotment of scrip to spend at the company store!
Cool! an ad hominem and a strawman rolled into one!
I didn't say the government shouldn't do anything. In fact I specifically listed at least one thing the government should do - keep guns (and by implication use them when necessary). I agree with the need for anti-trust law. What I disagree with is the presumption articulated by liberals like George W Bush who famously said, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move." In fact before government moves we should spend some serious thought on whether the problem can be addressed without government involvement. Will enlightened self-interest lead to a solution? Can charities step in? What are the potential unintended consequences of government action? If government action turns out to be a mistake will it be corrected or will it, having the force of law and continue forever? Even if charities and business can't or won't address a problem, will the cure of putting a government gun to people's head to force them into involuntary servitude of fixing the problem - will that cure be worse than the problem we're hoping to fix?
Liberty has an intrinsic value that is difficult to measure in terms of money, health and security. We know our forefather's risked and many sacrificed their money, health and security for the sake of liberty. What value do we place on liberty today?
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, governments, wether they be state, federal, county, whatever, don't have "rights." They have powers. It's a big difference -- human beings have rights because of natural law, or social acceptance, or convention; they aren't contingent and cannot be revoked. Government power is always contingent, even if they put guns to everyone's heads -- which is actually an indicator of a very weak government, not a powerful one.
Therefore Corporations can be given far more rights than the government.
Well said, loyal consumer! For your grassroots advocacy, you have earned an extra allotment of scrip to spend at the company store!
Cool! an ad hominem and a strawman rolled into one!
I didn't say the government shouldn't do anything. In fact I specifically listed at least one thing the government should do - keep guns (and by implication use them when necessary). I agree with the need for anti-trust law. What I disagree with is the presumption articulated by liberals like George W Bush who famously said, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move." In fact before government move
Re:fear everything! (Score:5, Interesting)
Only governments have the right to use guns
That used to be the case but no longer is.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0910-07.htm [commondreams.org]
"Privatization" is the primary agenda of the corporate sponsored Tea Party and related movements. The goals are to dismantle the government offices and subcontract those roles to private corporations (on the presumption that government-run organizations are inherently inefficient and waste taxpayer dollars). Multi-national conglomerates already "own" the US Congress through aggressive lobbying, kickbacks for campaign funding, and the promise of highly compensated future roles as consultants, senior executives, or board members for today's politicians, judges, and appointed officials. The mega-corporations are to US government what the cocaine and heroine cartels are to the Mexican government.
To give you an idea, here's a quick summary of the transitions sought or already begun:
WAS - NOW
Regulatory Agencies - Self-regulation
Public Utilities - Same utilities but customers now have to buy through specially qualified "distributors" of the same utility rather than direct
Public Courts - Private Arbitration (many judges today are issuing one-sided pro-business decisions in the hope of landing a better paid position as a private arbitrator at one of the major firms. Arbitration proceedings do not have to follow state or federal rules of procedure, appeals are limited, legal precedant does not apply, there is never any jury of peers, and rulings do not even need to abide by the US Constitution)
Collections Agencies - Sheriffs and Judges (ok, this is a reversal, but not a good one, and one that serves corporate interests and re-institutes debtor's prisons: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html [yahoo.com] )
Corrections Facilities - Private Prisons (and much incentive to fill them regardless of guilt or innocence: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal )
CIA - Private contractors (including foreign nationals. No oath of service or duty to uphold the Constitution. Can violate US and international law while not accountable to anyone outside of their employment contract)
US Armed Forces - See above
State Law Enforcement - See above
Public Schools - Vouchers for Private Schools (non-sectarian schools have limited capacity. In a "free market" your kids would likely end up in a fundamentalist religious school). In time the vouchers would go away as they are not a product of the "free market" and make the system unworkable.
Fire Departments - Private Fire Departments http://www.salon.com/2010/10/04/libertarian_fire_department/ [salon.com]
The "benefits" of privatization have been debunked for most roles of government http://umaine.edu/ble/files/2011/01/Privatization-BP-08.pdf [umaine.edu]
But privatization is still pushed as a cure-all in election campaign ads. I could go on, but as I show above, "privatization" eventually eliminates all of your Constitutional rights and protections. Once the corporations OWN the government AND the guns, who is going to help you? I'd rather not give corporations any more rights than they already have, especially since they are now considered "people" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
If you object to being terrorized by your government, you must be a terrorist!
We're only detaining you and your family for you're own good! Now take off your clothes and get in line for a shower.
Same was said with a lot of tech (Score:5, Interesting)
GPS used to have a 1km fudge factor inserted into it to prevent people using it for terrorist activities.
Not that I'm entirely sure how I feel about Google using drones to improve Google Earth. If I have a privacy fence up... well, it's to protect my privacy. Taking pictures from a low flying drone isn't much different than leaning a ladder against the fence and climbing up to peer over. On the other hand, it's a one time thing (or at least rare) and the same viewing angle can be achieved any number of ways that people don't have a problem with (if nothing else manned aircraft). I think I'm actually going to have to think about this one a bit...
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't want someone to be watching me in real-time, but I'd be ok with a snapshot of my property every few years - especially given the potential advantages.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about someone's freedom to watch you real-time? You need to take appropriate measures to stop it by being on private property inside a building and away from windows. It is your responsibility to protect your privacy.
As mentioned in another window, wait for things like Google Glasses. Everything could be recorded everywhere. You can't make the glasses illegal. You can't make a law that says, "When technology is too good, it can't do this or that".
Re: (Score:3)
Your local tax board wants a snapshot of your property every few years as well. If a tree falls down and reveals a mountain-top view they can increase the taxable value of your home by another $100k.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (Score:5, Informative)
GPS used to have a 1km fudge factor inserted into it to prevent people using it for terrorist activities.
LOL rewriting history .mil always had the high precision codes, at least I/we did in the early 90s. I forget the nickname our handbag sized GPS receivers had, it was a long time ago. The main point was making sure our grunts on the ground could give their exact grid square to artillery support, but the other guys wouldn't have the tech. Eventually it became fairly pointless to restrict anymore, once everyone had cheap RX and it never really materialized as a tactical problem.
Also some concern about ICBM and cruise missile nav points.
It was never, until post 9/11 history rewriting, about terrorism.
To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.
Why with that information terrorists could drop anthrax right down your AC duct from 20,000 feet!!!!
Or maybe not.
Re: (Score:3)
To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.
How unimaginative you are. High accuracy would enable you to fly a swarm of C4 laden RC planes into the center court of the Pentagon, or to the front doors of Congress.
I've read of plenty of battles where the opposing sides were a lot closer than one klick away from each other. Should the "fast movers" take out their guys, your guys, or does it matter?
Re: (Score:2)
The Pentagon and Capitol are big buildings with well-known locations, you know.
I'll assume Poe's Law here and acknowledge the same is true of electrical substations and the like.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (Score:5, Informative)
I think GP was talking about Selective Availability (SA). Basically an intentional error that limited accuracy of commercial GPS to 30-100m. It was turned off 5/2/2000. Ever since then we've had 95% 10m accuracy, but the DOD has the ability to selectively re-enable SA on individual satellites. The thought being, if we see a couple of cruise missiles ( or a missile boat ) within range of the US, we can disrupt GPS so it can't be used against us. As a defensive layer, this ability no longer packs the same punch as it did back in the day. Terrain contour matching ( TERCOM ) is cheap and 'easy' these days with the processors and power available to avionic packages. I don't doubt if you google for it, someone's built a TERCOM system for their hobby RC plane by now.
Either way, it wasn't about _terrorism_ so much as it was about nation vs nation war.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (Score:5, Informative)
There's actually another aspect of GPS that's little known - there are limits placed on GPS receivers by the government. Basically a civillian (C/A) receiver must disable itself once its calculated speed and altitude go above certain limits (CoCom Limits [wikipedia.org]), meant to prevent their use in missiles and such.
While most people won't reach the speed limits, people have reached the height limits when doing "space" photography using weather balloons. They consistently lose their GPS telemetry data at that point.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (Score:4, Insightful)
I really fail to see how this should be treated any different than someone flying 100 ft or 10,000 ft over your house and looking down. Just because the camera is insanely better than a human eye and it can be stored perpetually should be inconsequential. If you want progress, you can't legislate technology. This is like Google driving around on public roads to take pictures and collect WiFi info. Just because they did it on a large scale shouldn't make it illegal. These arbitrary lines drawn by government (or people simply requesting them) are crazy.
When you have a neighbor, you put up a fence. If someone looks over the fence, too bad for you; build it higher. If someone flies over the top, put a roof up.
Wait until we have contact lenses like the Google Glasses. These arbitrary lines are going to stop innovation. You won't be able to use it because it can process too much information, when it would probably revolutionize society.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the thing is tech should always be "polite" when it has capabilities to this level.
I have no problems with a sat shot of my house every 9 months or so.
what i have a problem with is somebody filming my house 24/7/52
photo showing that my backyard has a pool = not a problem
film of my 5 year old daughter swimming in said pool = BIG PROBLEM
so your rights to film my property end at the point where my rights to forcefully defend said property.
(aka i need to be able to file an OPT OUT with you)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is an administrative nightmare. You are drawing up exceptions to the freedom of another individual. Do you own the image/video of yourself and/or your property?
I understand that you would WANT it to be illegal for someone to watch your 5 yr old daughter swimming, but what about the freedom of someone else watching them? Do you draw the line with video cameras? The risk, because private property is everywhere, is that video cameras would then be illegal. Eventually, all technology would be illegal,
Re: (Score:3)
"That is an administrative nightmare. You are drawing up exceptions to the freedom of another individual. Do you own the image/video of yourself and/or your property?"
actually yes i do which is why any professional gets waivers/arranges payment in these types of cases.
and again your "rights" to watch anything in my backyard end where my ability to defend my backyard ends.
Re: (Score:2)
Professionals get waivers in order to be able to use the pictures commercially. You do not need a waiver or permission to take anybody's picture anywhere, except truly private locations (changing rooms, bathrooms).
You indeed have a "right to defend your backyard": with hedges, trees, and fences. Beyond
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything needs to be dragged out towards logcal absurdity.
I think it's fairly obvious that there is both a need for technological advancement, as well as respect for privacy. New technology is new. Iterative changes can accumulate into something substantially different. With new technology, we have new problems that need to be addressed, and can't be handwaved away by clinging to old solutions that account for the changes that have since taken place.
Let the aerial technology work, but require an opt-o
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (Score:5, Informative)
You're thinking of Selective Availability [wikipedia.org], which degraded precision giving errors of up to 100m, not 1,000m. As others said it was done to prevent foreign military from using the full capabilities of GPS,
As a bit of an anecdote, I remember my uncle complaining of how his GPS was inaccurate compared to the previous day whilest laying marks for some dinghy racing. I made a quip about the Americans probably bombing some country. That evening the news was full of pictures of Tomahawks being fired into Afganistan [wikipedia.org]. I became a bit more careful making facetious comments that day.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm entirely sure how I feel about Google using drones to improve Google Earth.
Who says that Google (or Apple) is using drones for this? I have seen no source that indicates the photographs are taken from drones, but this thread is full of people talking about drones. Does anyone have a source for these claims? I was under the impression that these pictures were being taken from regular airplanes.
Re: (Score:3)
Also there are any number of companies that will do aerial photography of properties for a fee.
Then again there are also a number of ways one can do their own aerial photography.
What's good for the goose... (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be arguing that drone usage by private companies violates the privacy and/or security of the American public. Many people agree with that. Additionally, many people agree that drone usage by Law Enforcement Agencies and US Federal Agencies also violates the privacy and/or security of the American public.
I find it hypocritical, then, that you would simultaneously support the use of armed drones in the US by Federal Agencies and Law Enforcement while objecting to unarmed drone use by private enterprise. Perhaps I'm not understanding your position clearly. Perhaps, and I believe this to be more likely, I am.
-----
Your lips are moving.
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest pro-government control-freak assholes in congress. He has no qualms bending logic, twisting and lying to spin whatever propoganda he needs to in order to advance his agenda. He has never met a law he didn't like, and works to restrict freedom with his every move.
This is only latest in a decades long series of moves by him.
See:
Chuck Schumer vs. Free Speech [wsj.com]
Schumer Among Biggest Supporters of Anti-Piracy Laws [patch.com] (He was a co-sponsor of SOPA and PIPA)
Schumer's racket: Lobbyists and hedge funds [washingtonexaminer.com]
Schumer proposes new federal regulations on grill brushes [motorcitytimes.com]
And since the above links are all pretty recent, here's some Schumer history: [talkleft.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is illegal for a private individual to imprison somebody. With proper safeguards and oversight though, we allow the government to conduct a whole legal process that includes such actions.
A seriously flawed analogy, given the fact that the drones do little more than the eyes of pedestrians already do, i.e., that they see things. Or do you suggest that opening our eyes in public spaces should be prohibited as well for everyone except law enforcement officials? I predict a sudden increase in traffic accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Great example!
So, for example, if we had one group - ie, the US government - absolutely forbidden from searching and seizing someone's person, house, papers, and effects, without a warrant issued in response to an oath or affirmation of probable cause - That group couldn't just randomly go around flying spy planes o
Re: (Score:2)
How did we keep safe and fight crime before drones existed?
Re: (Score:3)
Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.
Is it? I don't see that as intrinsically true. There are many situations where a violation of privacy would increase crime and put people in danger. In any case, it is a matter for society to decide, not some anonymous individual on a website.
Re: (Score:3)
Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.
No, they're not. They can be done without violating anyone's privacy, as everyone knows. We've been doing it for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
And should the military be fighting crime in the first place?
Generally yes.
The US has a rather negative history with its military, so it has a series of laws written from a perspective that no longer applies. Lots of other countries are happy to use special forces and paramilitary police units in both capacities, including the UK, Germany, France, etc.
For them, the sorts of problems they faced, including major terrorist activities with a local ish population and decent funding meant that using the police became unreasonable. So they used the army, or their legal sy
It's all military grade, or better (Score:5, Informative)
Nice grandstanding. Have you seen the Planet Earth series? I'd say that's probably better than "military grade" video. Actually, there's a lot of stuff out there better than military grade. Get over it.
Aside from being able to map out things from the comfort of your Abbottabad living room using a single source instead of doing regular old recon (it's not hard, or particularly obvious), there's no change except a perceptual one. He is correct that it is effectively impossible to secure every location. A better plan would be to build in the redundancy that should have been there in the first place. If my power goes out - way out in the country - for a week, it sucks to be me, but the 30,000 of us can manage. If power to the east coast goes out for a week, that's really, really bad. Perhaps you should consider a more robust system that is less prone to single point failures?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on how much this will do against terrorism. I'd love to see some more redundancy in our power system as well, but some things are difficult to make redundant, and can wreak havoc beyond the power aspect. What would bringing down the Hoover dam do to the surrounding area? About two dozen shaped charges in a circle, and I'm not sure the dam will be able to hold.
I'm a bit more concerned about the privacy implications. Low-flying drones can spot a lot more in my backyard - or an atrium, if I had one - th
Re: (Score:2)
Landowners have air rights? Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [legalflip.com]and here [wikipedia.org]. It'll come down to how low the drones are flying, and whether taking pictures of your backyard constitute some sort of trespassing. I'd be curious to find out if there ever was a case brought against some Ultra-light or single-engine Cessna pilot for invasion of privacy, trespassing or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it has happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbra_Streisand#.22Streisand_effect.22 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You have rights to the air above your land as far up as you can occupy or use - depending upon local zoning regulations.
You can also sue anyone who tresspasses in your airspace, so you could probably sue Google with their low flying drone at 200', but not American Airlines at 40,000'
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/airspace-right-lawyers.html [legalmatch.com]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19460601&id=eBoaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NCUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2585,35429 [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
FAA takes shooting at aircraft very seriously. RC or manned? How sure could you be before you bagged it? Maybe it's twice as high as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps you should consider a more robust system that is less prone to single point failures?"
The "Death Star" engineering model is flawless. What have we to fear?
better not tell him about OpenStreetMap (Score:3)
It precisely is building a schematic map of power grids [openstreetmap.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for a company that managed power lines and has the data of every pole. There was no explicit secretive part to dealing with the data.
However, I do remember when hot weather and then overload eventually caused the blackout in Cleveland, which spread to Detroit, Buffalo, and NYC. The grid is quite fragile.
Now I know (Score:2)
Schumer (Score:2, Insightful)
Schumer doesn't give a rat's behind about privacy. What he cares about is calling attention to himself so that he can go on bullying the private sector from his imperial senate seat
Its not military grade (Score:2)
If civilian companies have them.
Especially if those companies don't have any military ties.
This is the same reason my GPU isn't a military grade device.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a gray area. It used to be that anything useful to the DoD could get listed as 'dual use' technology. Encryption technology was one instance of this policy. Until it became evident that the loss of commercial utility due to development going offshore seriously outweighed the benefits of keeping export restrictions.
Some years ago, the Pentagon could sit down with your engineering/sales staff and negotiate the acquisition of some product to their specifications. If their specification was nothing more
Moron (Score:2)
"[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."
Right...because today, every square inch of the undocumented US infrastructure is completely secure. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
"[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."
Right...because today, every square inch of the undocumented US infrastructure is completely secure. /sarcasm
Most of it is heavily documented and much of that information is avaliable to the public.
I can go to my counties web site and download prerendered maps and shapefiles detailing our aquifer and locations of every well in the system.
Detailed maps of the national energy grid including capacities of each line is also freely avaliable.
I hate fear mongers, spies and stalkers. Using fear mongering as the basis for attacking spies and stalkers makes me sad.
huh? (Score:2)
FFS (Score:2)
4inches (Score:4, Funny)
FTA: "...Google and Apple have upgraded their capabilities to aircraft-based photography that can see through windows and capture detailed images with four-inch resolution."
Four-inch resolution? I guess I don't have anything to worry about!
Scare Away Freedom (Score:2)
I am tired of sensationalizing politicians and the government using the fear of terrorism, or even perversion as an excuse to curtail freedom.
"Curb You're Drones" Eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
You first, Chucky!
Yet another mealy-mouthed, two-faced, lying, dinosaur of a career politician that should be swinging from the end of a rope instead of being in a position of government power.
A Google drone might spot a greenhouse in my backyard and target horticultural product ads at me. The horror!
A government drone might spot the same greenhouse and target a SWAT raid on me. Or a Hellfire missile.
If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends.
Maybe an open-source drone project for civilians to counter the governments domestic drone spying with their own spy drones? I bet a few civilian drones buzzing over these politician's own homes and offices would get some attention.
And if the government decides to severely restrict civilian drone use while giving free reign to TLA/LEO drones, maybe my experience with designing military missile & torpedo guidance/targeting systems could find civilian counter-applications.
Strat
Re:"Curb You're Drones" Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
"If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends."
He also wants to disarm you since he clearly knows best how to run a society.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/3/schumer-bill-includes-steps-toward-fede.aspx [nraila.org]
The Second Amendment codifies the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to embed the capability for revolution in US society, which was founded by revolution. Those who would take your weapons would make you slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
"If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends."
He also wants to disarm you since he clearly knows best how to run a society.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/3/schumer-bill-includes-steps-toward-fede.aspx [nraila.org] [nraila.org]
The Second Amendment codifies the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to embed the capability for revolution in US society, which was founded by revolution. Those who would take your weapons would make you slaves.
Totally agree, and yes, I was aware of that bill Chucky & friends (fiends?) are pushing that you linked to, but thanks. Proud gun owner and NRA lifetime member here.
The more people that know the kind of freedom-destroying POS that Schumer is, the better. That's a large part of the reason for my posting that he should be swinging from the end of a rope instead of holding a position of power.
Death to tyrants. Sic semper tyrannis.
Strat
Pot calling the Kettle Black (Score:2)
I would say the same thing to Chuck:
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/drones-at-home-raise-1460393.html
Ban paper plat maps! Think of the children! (Score:3)
Clearly we need to ban the printing of publicly available plat maps (hint, they predate computers by at least a century!),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plat [wikipedia.org]
shut down GIS websites, and remove all info on everything from the Terrorist Intarwebs!
Plat maps show pipelines, power company and utility easements, and are absolutely fundamental to real estate transactions. Fuck, let's ban realtors too. The keep compromising "MLS listing books" the CommieIslamoNazis could use to kill our freedom.
Next time you see so-called "gun control" legislation pimped by Schumer, you'll have an insight into how his mind works!
Remember the Grad Student Who Got Blasted (Score:2)
Shades of Sean Gorman Batman! Anyone remember the uproar over his dissertation on critical infrastructure based on analysis of publicly available information. Almost 10 years ago.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/buzz/us-critical-infrastructure/3633190 [abc.net.au]
Pictometry? (Score:2)
This stuff's been out for years, but it just wasn't freely available to the public -- you had to pay someone to get access to it. (oh ... and those groups sold to governments ... I know my county has access to pictometry.com ... I have no idea what all they use it for, but their website has suggestions [pictometry.com])
Now that Google et.al. want to make it freely available, so the general public can use it, it's finally getting attention?
Welcome to reality (Score:2)
No democracy that is not a police state can protect every and each piece of public infrastructure.
Guess the Senator has less problems with the US becoming police state.
Bolt cutters, pipe wrenches, and motivation... (Score:2)
...are a threat to infrastructure too. As partisans prove (inexpensively, lest we forget) before the internet, someone who wants to fuck shit up and is willing to die trying can do considerable damage.
The way to sustain damage and keep fighting is to have enough redundant systems so you can take a hit or many. Trying to secure ALL your systems from ALL attacks is impractical and weakening.
WOULD BE impossible? (Score:3, Interesting)
With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location.
It IS impossible to secure every location. Will American policy makers ever address the problem of WHY people want to attack the US? Will the US ever adopt a proactive approach to defense?
I'm fortunate to live in a country with virtually identical amenities and standard of living compared to the US, yet we don't inspire even a fraction of the fanatical hatred aimed at the US. Why is it, Americans, that people on the other side of the globe, who do not speak your language and have never been to your country, detest you with such fervour they would kill themselves to inflict harm on you?
I'm not justifying their position; I'm just saying it's a question that bears asking.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do realize that Chuck Schumer is a Democrat, right? Definitely not a Tea Party guy.
Fail
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
well, it's only impossible to secure every location for every conceivable threat.
of course the only logical answer is to design the infrastructure so that you can't just blow up one booth and have the whole east coast go into a cascading failure.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Not only to the point of it being stupid to try, but it is 'Bend over and fuck me in the ass stupid' - which is exactly why they will try.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's probably because the entire Republican Party has been trying to outdo itself for years in saying stupid things to attract fringe votes and big donors, and it is organized and disciplined about staying on message.
"Organized" and "disciplined" are /not/ things that one can say about their opposition, so it's really just Chuck Schumer being an ignorant ass.
Re: (Score:2)
If I go outside, I can see homes. If I look on a map, not really.
Depends on the map. Good topo maps will show buildings.
Re: (Score:3)
Government has powers to put anyone in jail.
Private companies can not hold their employees against their will.
This is hypocrisy too?