What is Digg?155 Comments
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+146I don't see what the problem is. Just get Chloe or the people from CSI to enhance the image.
It's low resolution now, but when they're done with it, we'll be able to see a fly sitting on the hull of every UFO. - utcursch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+137Somebody nominated it for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_places_blurred_out_on_Google_Maps - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+108Hm, most of them are blurred for obvious strategic reasons. The blur around Cheney's residence is probably an optical phenomenon as a result of evil eminations, or perhaps a force field ;)
The one in the water at the jersey shore is only a few miles from my house and I can assure you nothing is there, as I've been there by boat. Plus you can see it clearly on other map services like Live Search. - meatloafsurpriz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+102It doesn't look like Google is hiding anything. Every location is blurred using a different method of blurring...some more blurred out than others. The people/companies/governments that took these pictures are most likely the ones doing the blurring
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+98"Enhance. Enhance. Enhance."
- championchap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+75My house is blurred out.. know why?
Because i live in Mid Wales in the UK.
there is nothing here but inbreeding and sheep.. oh and me. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -5/+72Right, the NSA... in Russia.
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -4/+62She can't, she's busy turning my 128kbps AAC library into flawless FLAC files.
- woxidu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38Yeah, it's definitely not meant for Wikipedia. The OP should just make a web page for himself to aggregate this kind of data. It's Original Research and Wikipedia has a policy against that. It's not that Wikipedia's conspiring with The Men in Black to keep us ignorant, it's that this kind of authored work is specifically forbidden by Wikipedia's policy.
- glasnostic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Digital Globe owns the satellite
btw.. thats not satellite imagery.. its shot from a plane.. - neoncricket, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Nudist colonies.
- trnscndr, on 10/12/2007, -16/+40Like any news organization, Google is censored by the NSA from showing sensitive data.
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Unless Google controls the satellites, I think we can blame this one some other company/agency.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Yet area 51 is still crystal clear?
- glasnostic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18To thinks to keep in mind from a guy who works in aerial imagery.
1: much of the high resolution imagery you are seeing is in fact shot by plane not satellite. That stuff is usually paid for by the city or county and those cities or counties can do with it, what they want, before putting out on the open market. The imagery takes a little while to get out on that market, usually happens once they update their photography.
From what I can tell, whoever blurred that imagery was asked to blur it by the people who own the property. If you know the guys who own the photography, you too can have your hose blurred.
Speaking as somebody who did cleanup work on one of Fairfax County’s recent orthophotography updates, I can say that if the official who was paying us for the service had asked us to blur his house or anything else, we would have done it.
Its not a conspiracy, just a symptom of the fact that most of the imagery you are looking at was once owned by cities or counties that have their own reasons for protecting liability or whatever.
Again, google does take these pictures, they acquire them second hand. - starcrunchfx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Well it isn't Google hiding it as far as I know. It is whoever they buy the maps from. Still interesting to see what is blurred out.
- OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Clearly it is the aliens playing a game of othello
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13For the hundredth time, Google doesn't blur anything.
They buy the imagery from providers (satellite, aerial, etc..) who may do whatever to it before hand. If those images come from planes within the airspace of one country, they are subject to the laws of that country. If they come from space (generally not the case for close-ups of anything), then it's up to the agreements between the satellite company and that particular country. And US satellite companies are generally very beholden to US interests, as the government is one of their main clients. That's more or less true for other countries who spend lots of money on this sort of data.
And, btw, blurring is the absolute worst thing any country can do to hide sensitive areas. Someone could fairly easily write a image processing algorithm to find any blurred areas and paint them orange. The only thing countries can do to hide sensitive installations is to actually hide sensitive installations (i.e., camo, or disguise). - utcursch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14There was no need to undigg it... (I dugg it, I just posted that comment for information). It's a nice article, but most people will probably consider it as trivia and unencyclopedic. There're plenty of Keep votes as well, though.
- funkymonkey68, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11UFO's and a green pac-man of course.
- Protoss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11So..what you're saying is there are huge moving things underneath the blurred sections? Well *****, thats even more scary than just thinking they're highly classified prisons or some *****.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Blurs are suspicious. If they really didn't want you to know about *****, they'd just photoshop in some fake warehouses or trees and *****.
Make you sound like a nut when you start yelling about the biochem research facility and people look and say dude, there's just trees there. You start talkin about what's behind the blur, you get people's attention. - FrederikNS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The are fields, they're round because that makes it easier for sprinklers to water them.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I say keep it because how can you not agree with this argument:
"This list was not made to support a claim of censorship by Google, it was made to list places censored by Google. Just as List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters was not made to support claim that Star Wars fans have no life, but to list minor Star Wars bounty hunters." - triscuitbiscuit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@Thatsunpossible
So you are the reason as to why she has been missing these past few episodes? - forcedfx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I see power plants that are blurred out, yet the almost 40 year old nuke plant near my house is perfectly visible. A plant that sits only hundreds of feet from a state highway.
BTW people Google does not have their own satellites up in the sky. They purchase the images from another company(s) so there is no telling who edited them. - danconia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6From what I understand at Area 51 they put everything under the hangars when they know a satellite is going to be overhead possibly taking pictures. Just what I heard, not sure it it's true or not (well notice on Google maps that there isn't anything outside the buildings).
- Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9That's not blurred, the picture just sucks. My hometown is even worse.
- anthropocentric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Doesn't blurring an area bring unecessary attention to it? Evil forces can just target each blurred area.
- SharkyTech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4See above comments about Area 51 being crystal clear.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh, *please*. It's not in the interests of the us govt. to hide it from google earth. That'd just make people even more intrigued in it. All they had to do was know the day the picture was being taken and put some stuff outside of the hangers that is mildly interesting.
- ComputerSherpa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You know, if I worked at Google had underhanded, evil intentions to conceal specific locations for nefarious reasons, I'd find a better way to do it than a big attention-grabbing blur. I'd pick up a copy of Photoshop and make my Fortress of Doom look like part of the surrounding countryside. Grab a mountain or a big square of farmland from a random location on the other side of the globe and use that fancy new Healing Brush to make it blend in.
- SuperJimmyJimbo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4 @ glasnostic "If you know the guys who own the photography, you too can have your hose blurred. "
really? I've been wanted to get my hose blurred for the longest time! I wonder how my girlfriend would react..... - PaulOwen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3HAARP location:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=62.23%C2%B0+N,+145.09%C2%B0+W&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=13&ll=62.228196,-145.084763&spn=0.052631,0.157928&t=k&om=1&iwloc=addr - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Eric, push in on that" [/Caruso voice]
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes. And they STILL won't admit it exists, despite Discovery Channel shows how people shadow the workers there from the special airport--only to be met with black-car security in minutes...or when they dig up active monitoring equipment miles away from A51's borders, and black suburbans quickly pay a visit. Sometimes the government makes no sense.
(Okay, all the time.) - SMITHN4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Check google earth for Area 51 they have extreme high resolution coverage of the entire compound
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Bill was up there with Monica the first time they took pics.
- gllopc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was brought up in Lexington, Ky - the one at the top of the list of blurred sites in the United States. I've driven by that "blurred" location a million times and know that it's nothing more than a house, apparently with a pool. Must be some jackass who doesn't want the world to see him sunbathing.
Here's the blurred Google entry:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=37.978591,-84.419117&spn=0.007966,0.027122&t=k&om=1
Here's the Live.com Aerial view of the guys house:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=q9wwps7yyj8t&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=2023607&encType=1 - jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3 @FongoBongo
a secret military base maybe - EndofEternity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@repins
Its no where near Tunguska. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The satellite image data comes from 3rd parties - NASA, TerraMetrics, etc. Any blurriness by accident or at the request of some government is most likely there long before Google gets their hands on it.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@trnscndr
You're guessing, and you're guessing wrong. First, Google isn't a "news organization." Second, they aggregate content from others, even for imagery. Third, if you recall the stink Google made over turning over search records, there's no way they'd voluntarily blur image data without marking it as "Blurred by order of NSA" or whomever. Look at how they returned the mandatory censored results in china -- they at least told you they were censoring.
The fact that there are several different kinds of blurring, pixelization, and white-outs means it's all coming from different sources. Google has no control over this. - phairphair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is no Google conspiracy here. Sensitive scientific and military sites are obscured for obvious reasons. The satellite operators agree to blur imagery when requested from a particular country because to not do so would be considered hostile and lead to retaliatory outing of similar images of the corporation's country of residence.
Anyone who thinks this imagery shouldn't be obscured is simply naive. - FongoBongo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm really curious about the Russian blurring. The surrounding area has now infrastructure: roads, house, power lines, etc.....what the hell is out there in the middle of the mountains....makes the mind wander... a nuclear twinkie?......
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are 104 nuclear power plants in the US (with their accompanying spent fuel pools - easier and much more deadly targets). There are scores of nuclear research labs. There are countless industrial plants that both manufacture and move chlorine (and other toxic chemicals). There are about 7 or so bridges that if taken out - would bring the country to a grinding halt.
Insofar as terrorists are concerned, America is a target rich environment - with or without blurred out Google maps.
Interestingly, I have read that Osama and company considered driving their jets into nuclear reactors at first, but decided against it, as they didn't want to risk things getting "out of hand". Imagine Flights 11 and 175 going into the 2 reactors (or fuel pools) at Indian Point with a slow 3 mph wind out of the North.
Many years ago I would visit the Incident Response Center (for the Indian Point plant) in Tarrytown, NY. Every nuclear reactor has one. I would go to read up about the accidents and other incidents at the plant, as back then I was opposed to nuclear power and would write letters to the NRC. Back then, full blueprints of the plant were available at this center. I would guess they have probably (hopefully) taken steps to secure these places up a bit since 9/11.
The twin towers of the WTC were designed to withstand the direct impact of a Boeing 707 - the airliner of the day when they were built. Ironically, the containment structures of US nuclear power plants were also built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 - not the impacts of Boeing's larger jets like the 757 or 767.
The bottom line is that these terrorists do their homework and leave very little to chance. They are brilliant and meticulous military strategists. Google Maps may be a place they would visit for a first glance, but it sure isn't their primary recon tool. - digdigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Blah, blah, blah,
just go to yahoo maps, I found the 1st 2 for North America (and that's all I am going to search). I suspect, you will find most of the other ones. - LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is very easy to get satellite over flight times (look up with a stop watch for poor people, radar stations and counter spy satellites for the rich) and many organizations are known to do this. Patriot Games (movie: see link below*) nailed it on the head with the scene were the IRA training camp would go inside during flight times to make it look a lot more discrete. It's the easiest way to hide things from satellites, look at most Air Force bases and you will see this. Weirdly enough, Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards AFB: Link below**) seems to show off their aircraft with pride.
*
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105112/
** http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Edwards+Air+Force+Base&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=34.899342,-117.870426&spn=0.01517,0.040169&t=h&om=1&iwloc=addr - SebMCR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know for a fact that all the sites in the Netherlands are military bases, my dad is in the Dutch army and we spent a little while checking for all the military sites he knew of and they were all pixelated. i guess its just been decided by the powers that be in Holland that these places are sensitive and should be censored. i wouldnt see any big conspiracy, although it seems a little over the top. i mean we all know that many of the images on google earth are 4/5/6 years out of date, if not longer. i think those that see the censorship as some big conspiracy really need something better to do with their time. if you are a government, you protect anything sensitive to national security. its as simple as that. is someone published pictures of your mum naked on the internet, would you not want to censor it? i see little difference between that and the subject matter here.
- ScottMaximus1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I invite you to take as many pictures of power plants as possible. I'm sure Homeland Security will have something to say about it though :)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is