|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: [gislist] Spatial Data Distribution and National Security |
| Date: |
05/13/2004 03:35:01 PM |
| From: |
Anthony Quartararo |
|
|
=20
Having not read this "book", but, given the thread and obvious focus of =
the
study, there is probably nothing that is available in the public domain =
that
would really assist any bad guys do any bad things. I mean, how
unsophisticated are box cutters ? Who needs precise GPS coordinates of =
the
WTC when you can see them clearly from a cockpit. As demonstrated in
Madrid, public transportation networks are, and will continue to be a
perpetual risk. No need for detailed GIS data, in fact, most =
transportation
terminals GIVE maps away of the networks, along with timetables, etc. =
and an
ugly pictograph diagram (as opposed to a true map) is all that would be
needed to convey to a bad-guy team where, when, who and how, right ? =
More at
home, the DC snipers drove around at random (which amplified the terror
factor) in a very unsophisticated beater car with a pocket full of =
shells.
My point is, that this is a lot about nothing. It is an indefensible
proposition to suggest that our national geospatial data [at least the
public domain stuff] is a state secret, the genie is and has been out of =
the
bottle for many years, and cannot be put back in, period. =20
The interesting thing, in my eyes, would be an examination of what
non-public geospatial data is at risk, or worse, changing hands outside =
the
US. That is, yes, the dirty O word. Has nothing to do with the current
bogus political furor of some wannabe politicians about outsourcing and
jobs, economics, etc., but the fact that for 20+ years, many utilities =
have
had their critical infrastructure details sent offshore, in many cases, =
to
places less than friendly toward the US and certainly not to secure
facilities, would be of more concern, if one were to be concerned about
these things...
The fact that someone, hopefully not taxpayers, paid for this RAND =
study,
that resulted in 237 pages that apparently boils down to stating the =
obvious
is a bit gratuitious, if not a foolish allocation of sparse resources.
Regards,
Anthony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com=20
> [mailto:gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com] On Behalf Of JONATHAN BYRON
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:13 PM
> To: gislist@lists.thinkburst.com: gould@lsi.uji.es
> Subject: Re: [gislist] Spatial Data Distribution and National Security
>=20
> Well, you are likely to find broad conclusions in the=20
> summary, written in bureacratese. No surprise there.=20
>=20
> On page 27-28, it concluded that a small percent of currently=20
> available geospatial data would be useful for planning an=20
> attack, and none that they saw would be critical for planning=20
> an attack. That is rather different from your suspicion that=20
> it was an attempt to supress the availability of GIS data.=20
>=20
> Jonathan=20
>=20
>=20
> >>> Michael Gould <gould@lsi.uji.es> 05/13/04 03:56PM >>>
> Interesting in what sense? The report doesn't reach many=20
> solid conclusions, other than that the federal agencies now=20
> have an excuse for filtering public sector information flow.
>=20
> printed page 128 states in the conclusions:
>=20
> "An analytical process should be used by federal agencies and=20
> other organizations to assess the potential homeland security=20
> sensitivity of specific pieces of geospatial information that=20
> is publicly available and whether restricting access would=20
> enhance security.
> The analytical framework presented earlier is a useful first=20
> step, which is immediately available, for helping federal=20
> decisionmakers to make sound and consistent decisions on=20
> whether and how to restrict public access to geospatial=20
> information. We also believe that this framework can be=20
> useful for any decisionmaker faced with determining whether=20
> and how to make specific geospatial information publicly accessible."
>=20
> Sounds like this process could potentially boil down to=20
> supression of large scale geospatial data in just those key=20
> areas where people are most likely to want to study. By=20
> people I mean all citizens, even the "bad ones" who also have=20
> access to public libraries and the web :-)
>=20
> Perhaps other on these lists will actually read the report,=20
> and then opine.
>=20
> cheers
> Michael Gould
>=20
>=20
>=20
> At 20:50 13/05/2004, JONATHAN BYRON wrote:
> >Interesting paper from the RAND think tank dealing with spatial data=20
> >distribution and homeland security.
> >
> >http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG142/MG142.pdf
> >
> >
> >Jonathan Byron
> >GIS Specialist
> >City of St. Augustine
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >gislist mailing list
> >gisl
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
