Proceed to GeoCommunity Home Page


SpatialNewsGIS Data DepotGeoImaging ChannelGIS and MappingSoftwareGIS JobsGeoBids-RFPsGeoCommunity MarketplaceGIS Event Listings
HomeLoginAccountsAboutContactAdvertiseSearchFAQsForumsCartFree Newsletter

Sponsored by:


TOPICS
Today's News

Submit News

Feature Articles

Product Reviews

Education

News Affiliates

Discussions

Newsletters

Email Lists

Polls

Editor's Corner


SpatialNews Daily Newswire!
Subscribe now!

Latest Industry Headlines
SiteVision GIS Partnership With City of Roanoke VA Goes Live
Garmin® Introduces Delta™ Upland Remote Trainer with Beeper
Caliper Offers Updated Chile Data for Use with Maptitude 2013
Southampton’s Go! Rhinos Trail Mapped by Ordnance Survey
New Approach to Measuring Coral Growth Offers Valuable Tool for Reef Managers
Topo ly - Tailor-Fit for Companies' Online Mapping Needs

Latest GeoBids-RFPs
Nautical Charts*Poland
Software & Telemetry GPS
Spatial Data Management-DC
Geospatial and Mapping-DC
Next-Gen 911-MO

Recent Job Opportunities
Planner/GIS Specialist
Team Leader- Grape Supply Systems
Geospatial Developer

Recent Discussions
Raster images
cartographic symbology
Telephone Exchange areas in Europe
Problem showcasing Vector map on Windows CE device
Base map

GeoCommunity Mailing List
 
Mailing List Archives

Subject: Re: [gislist] Spatial Data Distribution and National Security
Date:  05/13/2004 05:25:00 PM
From:  Ron Lake



Michael Gould wrote:

> Yes, I saw that conclusion also, 6% I think was the figure of possibly
> sensitive data.
> But if anything politically actionable is to come of the report/book,
> it just may be the overall suggestion that a few relevant agencies
> quantitatively study all GI to determine which may be sensitive.
> Provides an excuse to reduce access if they want to, that's all.
>
> What I think *is* interesting is that the government commissioned the
> study at all, which I would think cannot be positive for SDI
> initiatives out there.
>
> M Gould
>
> At 22:13 13/05/2004, JONATHAN BYRON wrote:
>
>> Well, you are likely to find broad conclusions in the summary,
>> written in bureacratese. No surprise there.
>>
>> On page 27-28, it concluded that a small percent of currently
>> available geospatial data would be useful for planning an attack, and
>> none that they saw would be critical for planning an attack. That is
>> rather different from your suspicion that it was an attempt to
>> supress the availability of GIS data.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> >>> Michael Gould <gould@lsi.uji.es> 05/13/04 03:56PM >>>
>> Interesting in what sense? The report doesn't reach many solid
>> conclusions, other than that the federal agencies now have an excuse for
>> filtering public sector information flow.
>>
>> printed page 128 states in the conclusions:
>>
>> "An analytical process should be used by federal agencies and
>> other organizations to assess the potential homeland security
>> sensitivity
>> of specific pieces of geospatial information that is publicly
>> available and whether restricting access would enhance security.
>> The analytical framework presented earlier is a useful first step, which
>> is immediately available, for helping federal decisionmakers to make
>> sound and consistent decisions on whether and how to restrict public
>> access to geospatial information. We also believe that this framework
>> can be useful for any decisionmaker faced with determining whether
>> and how to make specific geospatial information publicly accessible."
>>
>> Sounds like this process could potentially boil down to supression of
>> large
>> scale geospatial data in just those key areas where people are most
>> likely
>> to want to study. By people I mean all citizens, even the "bad ones"
>> who
>> also have access to public libraries and the web :-)
>>
>> Perhaps other on these lists will actually read the report, and then
>> opine.
>>
>> cheers
>> Michael Gould
>>
>>
>>
>> At 20:50 13/05/2004, JONATHAN BYRON wrote:
>> >Interesting paper from the RAND think tank dealing with spatial data
>> >distribution and homeland security.
>> >
>> >http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG142/MG142.pdf
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonathan Byron
>> >GIS Specialist
>> >City of St. Augustine
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >gislist mailing list
>> >gislist@lists.geocomm.com
>> >http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
>> >
>> >_________________________________
>> >This list is brought to you by
>> >The GeoCommunity
>> >http://www.geocomm.com/
>> >
>> >Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
>> >http://www.geobids.com
>>
>> -----------------------
>> Michael Gould
>> Dept. Information Systems
>> (Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos)
>> Universitat Jaume I
>> E-12071 Castellón, Spain
>> mailto:gould@lsi.uji.es
>> GIM'04 workshop http://gim04.unizar.es
>> 2nd Vespucci Summer School www.vespucci.org
>
>
> -----------------------
> Michael Gould
> Dept. Information Systems
> (Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos)
> Universitat Jaume I
> E-12071 Castellón, Spain
> mailto:gould@lsi.uji.es
> GIM'04 workshop http://gim04.unizar.es
> 2nd Vespucci Summer School www.vespucci.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gislist mailing list
> gislist@lists.geocomm.com
> http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
>
> _________________________________
> This list is brought to you by
> The GeoCommunity
> http://www.geocomm.com/
>
> Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
> http://www.geobids.com
>
>
Hi,

You could look at it from another perspective. In order to control GI
information - y

Sponsored by:

For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!

Copyright© 1995-2012 MindSites Group / Privacy Policy

GeoCommunity™, Wireless Developer Network™, GIS Data Depot®, and Spatial News™
including all logos and other service marks
are registered trademarks and trade communities of
MindSites Group