[Infowarrior] - Fear-mongering over aerial images (again)

[Richard Forno]

  Aerial images online endanger national security, critics say
June 5, 2009 -- Updated 1609 GMT (0009 HKT)
By Mike M. Ahlers

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/05/aerial.images.security/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One is a assemblyman in California; the other a  
piano tuner in Pennsylvania.
Critics fear that online aerial images of nuclear power plants in the  
U.S., like this one, could aid terrorists.

Critics fear that online aerial images of nuclear power plants in the  
U.S., like this one, could aid terrorists.

But when they independently looked at online aerial imagery of nuclear  
power plants and other sites, they had the same reaction: They said  
they feared that terrorists might be doing the same thing.

Now, both have launched efforts to try to get Internet map services to  
remove or blur images of sensitive sites, saying the same technology  
that allows people to see a neighbor's swimming pool can be used by  
terrorists to chose targets and plan attacks.

"It is disturbing to me that terrorists can now perform considerable  
surveillance without visiting the targeted site," piano tuner and  
nuclear watchdog Scott Portzline wrote in a letter to Homeland  
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Portzline is asking the Department of Homeland Security and the  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to seek voluntary compliance from  
satellite and aerial imagery companies to blur images of nuclear  
plants. Video See how detailed these aerial images are »

Joel Anderson, a member of the California Assembly, has more expansive  
goals. He has introduced a bill in the state Legislature that would  
prohibit "virtual globe" services from providing unblurred pictures of  
schools, churches and government or medical facilities in California.  
It also would prohibit those services from providing street-view  
photos of those buildings.
Don't Miss

     * Probe finds U.S. military hardware easy to buy, ship
     * Obama creates top job for guarding online security

"It struck me that a person in a tent halfway around the world could  
target an attack like that with a laptop computer," said Anderson, a  
Republican legislator who represents San Diego's East County. Anderson  
said he doesn't want to limit technology, but added, "There's got to  
be some common sense."

Without leaving his Pennsylvania home, Portzline can take a virtual  
tour of the nation's 66 nuclear power plants. Using the online mapping  
services, he zooms in on the iconic cooling towers of one plant and  
the less-distinctive reactor building.

But the more striking images come when Portzline clicks on the "bird's- 
eye" option offered by the map service. The overhead views, which come  
chiefly from satellites, are replaced with strikingly clear oblique- 
angle photos, chiefly shot from aircraft. By clicking another button,  
he can see the same building from all four sides.

"What we're seeing here is a guard shack," Portzline said, pointing to  
a rooftop structure. "This is a communications device for the nuclear  
plant."

He added, "This particular building is the air intake for the control  
room. And there's some nasty thing you could do to disable the people  
in the control room. So this type of information should not be  
available. I look at this and just say, 'Wow.' "

Terror expert and author Brian Jenkins agreed that the pictures are  
"extraordinarily impressive."

"If I were a terrorist planning an attack, I would want that imagery.  
That would facilitate that mission," he said. "And given the choice  
between renting an airplane or trying some other way to get it, versus  
tapping in some things on my computer, I certainly want to do the  
latter. (It will) reduce my risk, and the first they're going to know  
about my attack is when it takes place."

The operators of Three Mile Island, the plant closest to Portzline's  
home, say they are not worried about the online imagery.

"Our security programs are designed and tested to defend against (an  
attacker) that has insider information -- even more information then  
is available on the Internet," said Ralph DeSantis, spokesman for  
AmerGen, which operates the plant. "In addition to that, our physical  
security is constantly changing... so what you see one day won't be  
the same as the next day," he said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tells CNN it has seen Portzline's  
letter and is reviewing the images.

"In the past we've considered such images to be dated and of  
sufficiently low resolution as to not be a concern. But we're taking  
another look because the resolution of nuclear power plants is  
something we take very seriously, and we frequently assess and  
reassess risk as the situation changes," said NRC spokesman Eliot  
Brenner.

But any action beyond requesting voluntary blurring of images may be  
well beyond the purview of the NRC or the DHS, industry officials say.  
That is because while the government licenses imaging satellites and  
restricts the resolution satellite operators can provide commercially,  
it does not license aerial photography, which provides the higher  
quality images.

Regulating aerial imagery of sensitive infrastructure would be  
problematic or impossible, a spokesman for one major satellite imagery  
company said, noting that people can take aerial photos of the CIA  
headquarters in Virginia while landing at Reagan National Airport in  
Washington.

And, he adds, "Who defines what sensitive is?"

Anderson, the legislator, said he first became concerned after hearing  
that terrorists used online mapping programs to plan the Mumbai,  
India, attack last November. His concern increased when he heard Hamas  
say they used the technology to help plan rocket attacks on Israeli  
cities.

He exposed the programs and saw photos of buildings so detailed he  
could identify air ducts and elevator shafts. "I thought, 'What's the  
useful purpose of having that level of detail?'" he said.

"We still have to live our lives, but I'm not sure that having  
intimate details of buildings that are high-risk targets is something  
we should do," he said.

Anderson said he understands his bill has First Amendment and  
censorship implications, and he has intentionally slow-tracked it so  
it can be given proper consideration. But he is adamant that something  
needs to be done.

"Techno-geeks hate it because they don't want any kind of limit on  
anything," he said. "If they could get down to the atoms in the brick,  
they would do it. The man on the streets says 'I get it. I don't know  
why I need to see the bricks to get to the building.'"

Microsoft, which operates one of the most popular map sites, said it  
operates with security and privacy in mind, but declined to say what  
images have been blurred or removed from its site.

"Our mapping products fully comply with U.S. laws...and have been  
designed to meet the demands of many of our customers," the company  
said. "While not all images are able to be removed, Microsoft also  
provides people and governmental entities with the opportunity to  
report images that may raise concerns and may remove or blur images  
brought to our attention. Microsoft will review all reports and make  
changes to the image as quickly as possible."

But is the cat already out of the bag? Is it too late to rein in  
detailed imagery?

"Yes, but..." Brian Jenkins, the terror expert, said. "I think there's  
utility in doing this (blurring images)."
advertisement

"In the coming years, there will be additional security technology  
that will become available and additional things that we may want to  
do to further improve the security of those facilities. We would like  
to have the ability to do that without that being promptly broadcast  
on the Internet," he said.

"People think of security in physical terms, barriers, walls, fences.  
But mystery -- that is, creating uncertainty in the minds of would-be  
adversaries -- is an important component of security," Jenkins said.  
"This (imagery) takes away that uncertainty. It removes all mystery."