Greetings. The latest salvo in the "cameras cause terrorism" battles has been fired by a State Assemblyman here in California, who has introduced legislation -- AB-255 -- to require Google Earth (and similar services) to blur a range of California locations -- as presumed protection against terrorist attacks. The fine for violations would be up to a cool $250K/day. The bill's proponent feels sure that other states and the federal government will want to get in on the mapping censorship bandwagon in a big way.

Assemblyman Joel Anderson (a San Diego Republican) lists initial sites to be "protected" under his legislation as schools, places of worship, government buildings, and medical facilities.

But why stop there, Mr. Anderson? If you're so sure that blurring public access aerial imagery is so important to stopping terrorism, why not go for broke? Don't people in shopping centers deserve the same protection? On the freeways? At your house? My house? Animal shelters? Movie theater multiplexes? My local motorcycle parts dealer?

This is all utter nonsense, of course. Highly questionable claims about the recent Mumbai attacks notwithstanding, I've yet to see any confirmed evidence of Google Earth or its kin being used in any significant way for terrorism planning beyond what could easily be done with more conventional maps or in-person observations.

Google has already bent over backwards to fulfill government requests for blurring of supposedly highly sensitive locations in aerial photos, and blurs faces and license plates in Street View.

The risk was always present that starting down the mapping "self-censorship" road could start an avalanche of demands from entities who just can't stand the notion of the public having access to good quality photographic imagery. After all, who knows what safety violations or other skulduggery observant members of the masses might find?

But of course, detailed mapping imagery and live closed circuit (CCTV) camera networks in the hands of law enforcement are viewed as wholly different matters by most of these same folks. Just look at the UK where there now seem to be enough CCTV cameras to cover the bodily orifices of the entire population on nearly a 24/7 basis.

Real-time government CCTV video surveillance networks can be genuinely privacy invasive and subject to all manner of serious abuses. But the types of details provided by publicly available photographic mapping services like Google Earth (and Street View for that matter) are extremely important as tools that enhance the public's right to know. And these mapping services are of extremely marginal value to terrorists or other evil doers in the real world, relative to other easily available and far less hi-tech information sources.

Knee jerk attacks on Google Earth and similar Internet-based mapping services -- seemingly inevitably made without hard evidence to back them up -- need to cease. I hope that Google, Microsoft, and others who provide these services don't give in easily and unnecessarily to unreasonable demands. This slippery slope of censorship puts into sharp focus how easily the entire planet could become one big blur.

--Lauren--