 |
| Our Opinion, Your Views — The Weblog for Location Technology & GIS |
Other Directions Media Publications: Directions Magazine | LBS360.NET | Directions Magazine francais Conferences: Location Intelligence | Rocket City Geospatial |
|
||
|
||||||||
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Other Directions Media Publications: Directions Magazine | LBS360.NET | Directions Magazine francais
Conferences: Location Intelligence | Rocket City Geospatial |
|
© 2008 Directions Media. All Rights Reserved
194 Green Bay Road, Glencoe, IL 60022 847-242-0412 |
v2.gif&contenttype=gif)
[offensive joke removed]
Recently, Google had to withdraw imagery of US army bases for national security reasons, and no other country has right to criticize about this because it's US government's own business. Read this from LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-google7mar07,1,6259319.story
Similarly, it is the sole business of the Chinese Government to lay down its own laws and regulations to keep order of its national security. Nobody else has the right to point fingers for this either.
Actually, prostitution is not legal in Vegas... It is legal in all other cities in Navada and also is legal in Rhode Island, the Netherlands, Germany and is, as they say, the oldest trade in all parts of the world, legal or illegal. It still takes place in Portland, Oklahoma City and everywhere.
My point being, laws are trying to regulate things that can't be regulated. Time exists. Place exists. Killing the Internet would stop online mapping, but nothing else. I can give coordinates of 4100 & 16095; use your boyscout handbook and you have a location. Taking mapping sites offline won't stop anyone that truely wants spatial element information. It does show the restrictive, knee-jerk of a government, be it China or Cheney.
I agree that taking mapping sites offline won't stop anyone that truely wants spatial element information.
However, if you read through the repot, the government is not trying to kill internet mapping as a whole. It is trying to set up regulartions and standards for what can be published and what can't, as well as correcting mistakes for maps that show wrong nation boundaries, etc.
"Some websites publish sensitive or confidential geographical information, which might leak state secrets and threaten national security," Min Said.
"It stipulated foreign organizations and individuals who intend to engage in surveying and mapping must obtain approval from the central government and accept supervision from local governments."
Taking maps showing wrong nation boundaries or security-sensitive info offsite, in my humble opinion, is actually what a sensible and responsible government should do, either it's USA or China.
Should the Government not allow someone to send me an email informing me that a presidental canidate is Muslum? Or that if I don't foward a link to shamrocks.com to seven people, that I will have bad luck for thirteen years? I wish they could stop these.
And I do think blocking information should be an option. Why should I let someone see what is in my backyard by going to google.maps or my County government GIS website! We should all be able to block.
But the Internet is a Pandor's Box and there is no such thing as a responsible government unless you are living in a small nordic village.
Just as our own government's administration has fought to ensure various contextual relationships of information to be either in or out of the hands of its nation's citizens -- one must agree that both countries are operating in a very similar manner -- and under the guise of 'national security'.
The reality remains -- that 'national security' is also dependent on the freedoms of its people to place its own government in check with such data and information. That is the basis of our democracy -- not simply the right the vote. Else, we would not have a media.
So many attempt to control it, however. A very sad thing to observe, really.
KoS
If to me. Then all I can say is, pick up a poly sci book and look at the definitions. I'm not defining the terms, I'm correctly applying those definitions.
If in the generic and to your last point. I agree, but there are always limits. And those limits can change time to time depending on the circumstances.
On the flip side, unrestricted "freedoms" can lead to an insecure nation. There is always a balance. I guess the scales of balance look different depending on ones own political and personal biases.
KoS