Google Street View Criticized For Showing 'Secret' SAS Base... That Has A Sign Viewable From The Street

from the see-if-you-can-spot-the-base dept

Thu, Mar 25th 2010 1:00pm — Mike Masnick

Vic writes in to let us know of yet another complaint against Google's Street View offering, this time in the UK, where apparently MPs and military bosses are upset that images are available on Street View of a "secret" SAS base. They're concerned that the images even show the sign saying "British SAS." But, of course, the only way Google got these images was by driving along public roads -- meaning that anyone could have driven along those roads and seen the same damn signs and buildings. It's not like this was actually a secret base at all -- and if it was, the UK military should have done a much better job of hiding it. If Google can "accidentally" discover it this way, you have to assume that anyone who actually cares would have figured it out long ago. The complaint is that those planning an attack can view the building via Street View... but, of course, they could also just drive by and take their own images. Oh, and of course, by complaining so loudly about this, it's only attracted that much more attention to the fact that the base exists and is viewable on Google Street View.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: privacy, sas, street view, uk
Companies: google, sas

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rob.Etler (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:04pm

Oh dear, I do believe it's time for a Simpsons quote.

Lisa: Yay! I found Area 51!
Soldier: Actually, ma'am, this is Area 51-A.
Map: You are here. We are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  You are correct in your belief.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:18pm

Striesand Effect Anyone?
Ok, let's see. The sign is in public view and they just drove by. What the hell is so secret then. Maybe not that many drive that way and probably would never even notice it if they did. I would think the same would apply to the street view? If you were not caring to see what's along that street then I doubt you would look at the street view either.

Of course now by going public and getting all pissy, you are just advertising its existence all loud and proud like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DJ, 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:27pm

?Streisand effect?
Kind of....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 7:58pm
  
  Re: ?Streisand effect?
  No, pretty much exactly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:42pm

The UK has developed an incredible paranoia about cameras and video cameras (kind of like the US has about official national identification schemes). This seems more to do with an irrational phobia of photographs than anything else. I like their brainless little dig about how terrorists would use the images to plot attacks. Clearly Google supports terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Valkor, 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re:
  When you say "UK" do you mean the citizens who are under the constant watchful eye of CCTV networks, or the corporations and governments that operate said CCTV? If there's photography paranoia in the UK, it's clearly not widespread enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re: Terrorist Attacks!?
  I like their brainless little dig about how terrorists would use the images to plot attacks.
  
  Since when is an attack on a military facility “terrorism”?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 26 Mar 2010 @ 12:56am
  
  Re:
  :rolls eyes:
  
  Yes, because the US military would *never* do such a thing, right?
  
  http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1031603/pentagon-blows-google
  
  People who live in glass houses, etc...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:47pm

yeah why add more publicity to this?
Wouldnt' they just ask Google to take a new street view picture and to schedule it so they can take down the sign when they do it? I think that would make more sense then throwing a hissy fit and letting everyone know about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: yeah why add more publicity to this?
  but they're so GOOD at hissy fits.
  Don't steal their thunder
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny Canada, 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:48pm

If I was planning an attack in the UK, the last place I would do it is on a SAS base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dryfire, 25 Mar 2010 @ 7:39pm
  
  Re:
  You don't want to attack a base for their most prestigious special forces?
  
  I can't see why...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:54pm

this is normal for all militaries...
even in the US there are places on military bases, or whole bases, that aren't on maps, even thought he building is visible and there are signs in front of them. these places usually forbid photograpy and the like as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re: this is normal for all militaries...
  Not on public land, though. The only places where photography is prohibited are actually ON bases/posts; some prohibit photography on the whole base, others in only select places.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PHOENiX451, 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:22pm

that reminds me...
Ever see the pic of the sign for the batcave?

http://www.funnypictures.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bat-cave.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manu, 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:41pm

Looks like Brits are just crying for attention!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 3:30pm

Couldn't this problem just be solved by asking Google to photoshop the word "not" onto the sign somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 25 Mar 2010 @ 7:50pm

In all fairness, I can see why photographing a military installation is something the army might not be happy about, not so much because the location is a secret as because a photographic record of the base layout makes it considerably easier to plan ways of getting in. I dare say a single Street View shot of the main gates woouldn't be much use, but it's still something to potentially make life easier for anyone wanting to hose down the gatehouse with an Armalite or take out an outgoing vehicle with a roadside bomb. And I can remember when things like that happened in Britain all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 8:18pm
  
  Re:
  And Google having a picture of it is so much more dangerous than some terrorist driving by and taking a picture of it because...?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Graf, 26 Mar 2010 @ 1:06am

Not only, But also
There is a history of the UK lettng people know where secret installations are. Follow this link to find out where they will hide if a nuclear war breaks out: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/signlanguage/3917183/The-best-of-Sign-Langu age.html?image=8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rabbit80, 26 Mar 2010 @ 3:21am

Something that most people don't seem to consider is the height of the streetview cameras. For example - I have a tall hedge around my house which you cannot see over either driving or walking by. On streetview, the camera looks straight over the hedge into my front room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UKChap, 26 Mar 2010 @ 4:14am

Oh do come on now
Get real folks.

It's just the local MP trying to look busy and get attention in the run-up to the election and the typical journo half-job to fill column inches. The journo asks a chap down the pub with a tattoo and he says "oh yes, photos of a base might be used in planning an attack" and that becomes "military sources have concerns".

The government statement makes it clear that they understand they can't rollback the tide of publically available imagery eg Google maps/earth. No actual military chiefs are quoted so where did that come from?

Move along, nothing to see here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enrolled agent certification, 27 Mar 2010 @ 8:53am

Shouldn't have placed labels
I haven't viewed this on Street View itself, but based on what I've read so far, Google probably shouldn't have labeled it as such on the site. Even if just about anybody can drive by on the place itself, it still is a lot of information for people who haven't been to the place itself.

The SAS do have a point here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanVan (profile), 27 Mar 2010 @ 4:57pm

If the Google app is showing government buildings, they should be forced to not show them if the government asks them not to.

I get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]