national security

California has revised its proposed "Pay As You Drive" insurance regulations. A full copy of the regulations can be found here.

Vector One has an article on the growing importance of spatial data quality that is a worthwhile read for both lawyers and policymakers.

According to a post on Techblog86, China is "investigating" maps. Matters being investigated include: maps being produced without a license, maps that contain sensitive information - such as military facilities - as well as maps that fail to include territories that officially belong to the PRC. A recent post from Ogle Earth is a good example as to how and why this can be such an important issue.

A California teenager is challenging a ticket issued by a police officer based upon a radar gun reading. He believes that the GPS device in his car shows that he was travelling within the speed limit. According to the article, a ruling is expected in early October.


A recent New York Times article on the introduction of cameras with relatively simple photo geotagging capability. One wonders how soon it will be before someone tries to introduce a geotagged photo into evidence to prove where he or she was - or wasn't at a point in time.

Recent reports on China's efforts to curb on-line mapping sites for national security purposes.

Brownian Emotion has one of the best discussions I have seen on the tension between national security and an open society with respect to Google Earth in particular, and spatial data in general. http://www.brownianemotion.org/2007/06/29/google-earth-anxiety/. It is dialogue between Assemblyman Michael Gianaris' concerns about Google Earth and Avi Bar-Ze'ev, one of the forces behind Google Earth technology. Although I think that at times the two are speaking past one another, they both make some excellent points.

I am somewhat conflicted on this topic, as I can see both sides. As a former intelligence analyst -- including a satellite imagery analyst - I believe that spatial data, such as commercial satellite imagery, can have some real value to terrorists. And I do not fully buy into the argument that they can simply get the data elsewhere. Even if true, each additional step that they are forced to take increases the risk that they will either get caught before they are able to cause harm, or that they leave a trail that can be traced back to them. Law enforcement officials recognized this with respect to the flow of money to support terrorism and now banking transactions are monitored closely.

And as spatial technology improves (such as 3-D visualization), potential terrorists and their allies are going to be able to do more of their planning over the Internet. This will make it even more difficult to monitor them. Some have argued that such training will not provide a sufficient level of comfort to prepare for a terrorist attack - the spatial data may not be current, or may not provide all the necessary information. However, it appears that terrorists are not looking for carefully planned, precision strikes, but simply to maximize casualties and terror. (For example, it does not seem that are looking for a means of escape). As as a result, mid-quality, older data may be sufficient.

On the other hand, I agree that this industry has come too far and has too many potential economic and societal benefits to be hamstrung by censorship or stringent regulation. Unfortunately, there is no legal regime in place to balance these competing issues with respect to spatial data. I hope that a useful dialogue will develop soon between the spatial technology industry and the US intelligence and defense communities. Otherwise poorly thought through legislation may hamper the development of this segment of the industry. Perhaps the correspondence cited above will be a step towards such dialogue.

The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara has recently released its ruling that the California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires Santa Clara to sell an electronic copy of its GIS basemap (parcels, streets, orthophotos, etc.) to the public at cost, rather than at the much higher price it had been charging. A copy of the decision can be found at the website of the California First Amendment Coalition, the plaintiff in the case: http://www.cfac.org/content/index.php/cfac-news/press_release/ This decision is important because some California counties believe that the CPRA does not apply to GIS data, and therefore have been charging a much higher price than being charged for other public records.

It is unclear how this decision will affect other counties or Santa Clara's recent announcement that it was withholding the sale of GIS data while reviewing its security policy. It is also unknown whether Santa Clara will appeal the Superior Court's decision.

FCW.com reports on Santa Clara's efforts to temporarily halt the commercial sale of GIS data for security concerns. http://www.fcw.com/article102637-05-07-07-Print The town of Greenwich, Connecticut tried to prevent the release of its GIS data on similar grounds, but its position was rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Spatial technology companies that use local GIS data should follow this, and related cases, closely, as local counties and municipalities surely will.

The following link is to an Indian newspaper account of how Indian authorities still attempt to control maps of the country - particularly maps of its borders - from being imported into the country via foreign magazines. Another example of the power of maps - and the measures that governments and nations will take to control access to them. http://www.indianexpress.com/iep/sunday/story/279111.html

In a somewhat related matter, at least in my mind, http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=c5db0959-9f20-40c0-a63d-0e3ea4608748 is a link to an editorial in a New London, Connecticut newspaper regarding a controversial bill in the state legislature. According to the article, one part of the bill entitled “An Act Exempting Certain Public Service Company Records and Adjusting the Cost of Obtaining Public Records” would allow public utilities to restrict access to certain information for homeland security purposes. The second part of the bill relates to government outsourcing of data collection, including spatial data. Under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, state agencies are limited on what they can charge the public for the data once it has been collected. However, the proposed law would allow the cost of providing information to the public to be defined in the contract between the state or other government agency and the private contractor.

I have not studied the bill in great detail and have mixed feelings with regards to the opinions expressed in the editorial piece. However, I will point out that one of the unique aspects of spatial data is that it can have many uses. For example, a single data set can be useful for both homeland security purposes as well as for commercial or academic purposes. Any attempts to restrict or limit access to spatial data for one purpose, may have unintended consequences for other applications and uses.

The following is a link to an article that I wrote a few years ago on matters a spatial data company might want to consider from a national security standpoint. It received mixed reviews within the community when it was first written. I wonder if the sentiments have changed in this environment (i.e. an even greater abundance of spatial data and applications)? http://www.imagingnotes.com/go/article_free.php?mp_id=21&Udo

The establishment of the National Applications Office (NAO) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is intended to increase the access of law enforcement officials to satellite and aerial imagery. However, it may lead to unintended consequences for spatial technology companies.

Law enforcement has already begun to appreciate the value of spatial data. However, the increased access of law enforcement to satellite imagery will result in further recognition of the value of spatial data in investigations. As a result, law enforcement will begin to search for other types of spatial data - to be used on a stand-alone basis or incorporated with other types of data and displayed on maps or images. More and more they will approach spatial technology companies for data associated with individuals or events, as is currently done with financial institutions and telecommunication companies.

Companies will need to carefully consider their legal obligations to provide such information as well their duty to protect customer information. Unfortunately, because of the number of sensitive issues and conflicting interests that arise in such situations, it can be difficult to decipher a company's legal obligations in such situations. For example, before it was recently amended, the Patriot Act prohibited companies that turned over customer records pursuant to F.B.I. national security letters from disclosing these actions to affected customers. However, a number of courts have ruled that such a prohibition violates the Constitution. Partly in response to such concerns, Congress amended this portion of the Patriot Act when it was renewed; in the future the F.B.I. will need to certify that such prohibitions of disclosure is required to protect national security, criminal investigations, diplomacy or state secrets.


With respect to their duties to customers, spatial technology companies should also closely monitor the case of Hepting v. AT&T in the District Court in the Northern District of California. The case involves a class action lawsuit alleging that AT&T assisted the U.S. government in the unlawful monitoring of communications and providing the government access to an extensive database of sensitive customer information. The plaintiffs allege that AT&T acted as an agent for the government in violating their Constitutional rights as well as certain statutes that regulate the collection and disclosure of electronic transmissions. They are seeking both statutory and punitive damages.

It is hard to imagine that AT&T will have to pay damages for its part in this program as long as it sought and was provided proper authorization. However, even if AT&T ultimately prevails in the lawsuit, it will have spent a good deal of time and money defending itself. Sometimes there are no easy answers.