mrtravel wrote:
>
> This makes as much sense as the higher chance for extra screening of
> people that buy one way plane tickets, as if the terrorist aren't
> capable of buying round trip tickets. The only thing this does is
> penalize the non-terrorists.
First, let's start with what's "this" as in "The only thing this
does..."? Surely, Google Earth can exist without high resolution images
of military bases.
> If the information is publicly available, then terrorists would be able
> to find it with, or without the aid of Google Earth. There are non US
> satellites in space capable of such pictures.
> The attacks on US soldiers are not coming at military bases, they are
> happening in public areas.
If you look at the example of 9/11, you'll understand the point I'm
making. Prior to 9/11, an FBI agent recognized the unusually high
incidence of Arabs taking flying lessons and wrote a memo speculating
that the reason for this activity was a potential terrorist strike. We
all know that this memo was sadly ignored.
If high resolution images of military bases aerial were obtained only
with some effort and people who wanted to view these images could do so
only by making a formal documented request, I would hope that any trends
would be noticed and -- this time -- acted upon. Instead, Google Earth
serves up useful images for planning attacks in the privacy of one's
home in a manner than leaves a trace only with some effort. Why make
life easier for people intent on doing harm?
Does Google Earth keep track of the email addresses accessing the
military sites? Does Google Earth plan to turn the the information about
the military site inquiries to Homeland Security (to name one example)
for analysis? Can you say "rhetorical questions"?
As for your assertion that attacks on US soldiers are not coming at
military bases, the soldiers interviewed for the news segment directly
contradict your claim. I can think of no more authoritative source.
Karen Selwyn
|