Mostly he is insane, the reason being is that it’s censorship, meaning that anything objectable, or anything that could be harmful, dangerous to children or might promote terrorism is immediately blurred out or removed as soon as possible. I understand that there are many guides on the internet that show people how to do these things and mostly 30% or more of the internet is potentially offensive, but the fact that anything could be considered a threat to terrorism is partially stupid. The reason why I use partially stupid is because there are mostly some things that could be used for terrorism that we don’t know about yet but come on, we’re mostly prepared for a terrorist attack that hasn’t happened yet or possibly will not happen. I understand the safety of everyone and the thought of preventing terrorism once and for all and this might have a very, very small chance of working but I think the bill is stupid and the guy doesn’t have an idea how it works, though I do applaud his bravery.

Think about it, if a normal people were to be looking for a hospital of some sort, let’s say that they’re sick or that they need urgent attention. They would find that the hospital is blurred out for some reason, prompting some confusion as to why an average hospital would be blurred out. Or if they needed directions of a school of some sort, they would find it blurred and would also prompt confusion as to why the school is blurred out. I don’t know why a hospital or a school would need to be blurred out considering that as said above, it’s a top down map only and Street View does not allow you to view the campus or the back of a hospital. Furthermore if there were an impeding Terrorist attack, they would most likely be able to evacuate everyone safely and be able to defuse the bomb or shoot down the missile or whatever the terrorists might be doing. Also they would need blueprints of some sort because they would not know the interior or the structure of the building as Google Maps and mostly other map programs only show the roof.

Also, because the governor issuing the bill might not know that the bill applies to the US only, which means that the aformented things listed above will only be blurred in the United States and any other potential terrorist targets outside of the US will not be blurred. If the governor realizes that Google Maps may be used to plan Terrorist attacks in the US may be used to plan attacks in other countries such as Asia, Africa, South America, Russia, and other foreign countries. I’m not saying that I support the attacks on other countries but I’m pointing out a minor flaw in his bill. It would be that America is potentially safer and the other countries are even more vulnerable and valuable since it would be easier to plan out using Google Maps or any other mapping program that he might mention. Additionally, this would lead to some invasion of some other country or a crippling of another country of which a terrorist group could do for some reason or another.

More importantly, the plan of blurring out parts of a map is considered censorship to some. Let’s say that you liked something, something that was enjoyable, influential and risky, something that was released long ago. Let’s say that you saw the same thing a few years later, your favorite parts of the book are either changed, toned down or removed entirely. That’s what censorship is like, forcing people to remove or change the things they say in order to appeal to people who are either overreacting, are offended or believe that what they’re saying aren’t right at all. Mostly this feels wrong because people are going to be in a uproar because the government or a bill forced Google or Yahoo to blur out or remove any offensive, inappropriate or classified content, people feel that the way the internet delivers content is screwed up because companies and groups are confused by how they should deliver it and how it might cause an uproar or something.

I appreciate what he’s trying to do but I don’t think this bill is ever going to work. For one, it’s forcing companies to censor their content which people will complain over because the internet is supposed to be a free way to express opinions, two is that how is this going to help prevent terrorism since mostly Google doesn’t have any serious terrorism planning abilities, the blurred out areas are going to be obvious to terrorists, and it’s limited to companies located in California, which means that a company like Microsoft will have clear shots of those areas and it may be used as a terrorist tool itself, and it only covers the US which means other countries are not covered as described above, also the terrorists could use paper maps and phone books to find out places to strike. Three is that it’s poorly planned out, I mean if he truly wanted to prevent terrorism, he would want to take the issue to the United Nations and let them make a decision of whether to blur their terrorist targets or not.

I’m not saying that I support the bill, but with the emphasis on censorship and the fact that it’s poorly planned, I don’t think that it will ever work out. I personally think that there is no probable way to stop terrorism without causing a panic or some controversy but I think that some places are properly prepared after 9/11 to be ready to face this threat should it ever become a reality again, though I do hate the censorship that did come after 9/11 what with shows cutting scenes that involve buildings crashing and all that and that was a major blow for TV shows and media altogether. But I don’t think that maps should ever have to blur out anything just because it might cause some potential harm, mostly all censorship has done was sprout up paranoia and other kinds of fear because what they’re hiding or what they’re doing to free speech or it could be inappropriate for children or whatever insane reason there is and it’s brought no good for everyone except the people who think that it’s right.