Dick Cheney, Privacy Advocate

I, too, saw this on The Daily Show but it took Tim Lee to make me realize the blog post potential. You'll see below the satellite image of Dick Cheney's house that's available on Google Maps:

As you can see, he's used his powers of office to mandate that the photo be blurred precisely where he lives. Tim snarks: "He's obviously very concerned about protecting his home from prying eyes. I'm sure he's equally zealous in his defense of the privacy rights of ordinary Americans." And there's the rub. Clearly, the sort of all-pervasive surveillance Bush and Cheney favor seems a lot more appealing when you have the kind of power that's on display here. Those of us lacking such clout may have reason to worry.

Comments

Odd that he didn't make them blur the White House as well.

http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-31,GGLG:en&q=1600+pennsylvania+avenue+washington+dc

Maybe there are missile launchers on his property or something that he wants to keep secret.

Posted by bob | October 11, 2007 4:57 PM

As someone asked on Tim Lee's blog, I wonder what the procedure is by which Google is persuaded to change the data they show?

Posted by RSA | October 11, 2007 5:12 PM

yeah, cause there's no possible legitimate security concern that might explain this. i mean, who wants to harm cheney, right?

under your logic, we should also get rid of secret service protection (if everyone else doesn't get it, why should cheney or bush or whoever).

also, aren't you conflating google maps images with busy/cheney all pervasive surveillance? that is, those pix weren't created by bush/cheney, but private business. so go lobby your congressperson for protection. and haven't private citizens also raised concerns about various google images that google has taken into account?

Posted by dj superflat | October 11, 2007 5:17 PM

Strictly speaking, it's not "Cheney's" home, it's the Vice President's residence. IOW, he'll be moving out of it in a bit over a year, at which time I strongly suspect it will remain government policy to blur satelite photos.

One suspects a general government policy of blurring photos of possible targets of terrorist attacks, which exempts the White House simply because it's status as a national landmark and tourist destination, (Which the VP's residence isn't, I take it.) makes blurring satelite photos an obvious futility.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 11, 2007 5:18 PM

This reminds me of Michelle Malkin's paean to the right to privacy of our public figures:

Why publish maps and specific street names and photographs of the private (not anymore) homes where the Vice President and Defense Secretary and their families spend their vacations?

Why?
...
Because the "people" (you know: Code Pink, Fred Phelps, jihadis) have a "right to know," right?
...
I wonder how Pinch Sulzberger would react to citizen photographers trampling his driveway, snapping pics of his vacation home, and splashing them all over their blogs?

Posted by neil | October 11, 2007 5:23 PM

Actually, that's a lot less blurred than what was on Google Earth the last time I looked--then the whole of Observatory Circle was
nearly a uniform color.

For dj--this has been the VP residence for a long time, and the building itself has been there since the 1890's, so it is already on plenty of maps.

Posted by DCA | October 11, 2007 5:42 PM

Umm ... go here:

http://tinyurl.com/36qat7

And then click on Aerial Image. It looks less cloudy than Google. Besides, even with the cloudy image, it os obvious in the photo where Darth Vader lives.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | October 11, 2007 5:54 PM

I'm surprised by the White House and Capital. Last I looked, they Google had them blacked out, as if someone took a crayon to the picture and filled in the roof. It is hard to believe Bush let up, so I wonder if the pictures have been replaced by slightly altered ones to keep the badguys guessing where the gun turrets are. (That's a joke. I think.)

Posted by Mark | October 11, 2007 5:57 PM

> It is hard to believe Bush let up, so I
> wonder if the pictures have been replaced by
> slightly altered ones to keep the badguys
> guessing where the gun turrets are. (That's a
> joke. I think.)

I have talked to people who work at GIS companies, and that is exactly what they do. On commercial satellite maps of England a few entire airbases are missing, replaced with generic forest.

Open info guy that I am, in the case of the White House I would say that practice is justified. For the VP and the Observatory House it is not, but I doubt Cheney actually sleeps there anyway. A lot of tunnels we dug to key buildings in DC during WWII and later "forgotten".

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 11, 2007 6:01 PM

yeah, i know it's the VP's house, it's on mass ave. on the hill before wisconsin, etc. and, if you walked or driven by, you would have noticed that it's also notably less easy to protect than the white house (you've got a major street very close, lots of woods around, etc.). as others have noted, the maps that exist of the building, and fotos over the years, don't give away where the securities currently hiding. google images might.

and don't misunderstand -- i'll support the same blurring when obama or whoever is the VP, and won't be surprised if google is willing to take legitimate security/privacy concerns into account for others, etc.

Posted by dj superflat | October 11, 2007 6:07 PM

"to keep the badguys guessing where the gun turrets are. (That's a joke. I think.)"

Not a joke, as I understand, only they're anti-aircraft missiles.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 11, 2007 6:28 PM

You'd think they would blur out Langley, or NSA, or the Pentagon, or Andrews Air Force Base . . . but they don't.

I suppose I take the point that blurring could be useful as a security measure. But since the only documented use of this sort of obvious dithering is on Naval Observatory, it sure does look like an exercise in personal vanity.

Posted by southpaw | October 11, 2007 6:28 PM

IBM's Watson research center (just north of Millwood NY) has also been blurred in the satellite image on Google Maps so blurring is presumedly fairly common.

Posted by James B. Shearer | October 11, 2007 6:52 PM

You'd think they would blur out Langley, or NSA, or the Pentagon, or Andrews Air Force Base . . . but they don't.

The blurring of any such images is pretty damned pointless. These places have been under such observation for 50 years by the Soviets and are now under observation by any number of foriegn governments.

If the administrators of those facilities don't already take precautions to limit the effectiveness of intelligence gathering from aerial remote sensing, they have more to worry about than someone using Google Earth.

Posted by Ben R. | October 11, 2007 7:46 PM

That level of blurring looks like a perfectly reasonable compromise.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 11, 2007 9:43 PM

Don't worry about it, John Young's Cryptome has no such scruples. Just like he didn't mind revealing Valerie Plames's volunteer contact numbers, or Robert Seldon Lady's kid's name. If you want the foreign view; Geheim's 'Naming Names'
as of 2004, had taken the place of Agee & Wolf's
Covert Activity's quarterly tipsheet; now the IAIA
put that corner of that publication out of business.

Posted by narciso | October 11, 2007 10:50 PM

Steve Sailer writes: "That level of blurring looks like a perfectly reasonable compromise."

Paranoids of a feather flock together.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 11, 2007 10:57 PM

http://www.zillow.com responds to a search for this address:

"We could not find the home you requested, but you can add it to our database by posting it for sale or setting a Make Me Move™ price."

odd.
--ml

Posted by Martin Langeland | October 11, 2007 11:06 PM

New Hampshire's Seabrook nuclear power plant is blurred, but Three Mile Island is not.

Posted by Peter | October 11, 2007 11:26 PM

Oh, and while we're on the subject, Google Maps does not blur the most secret place in America.

Posted by Peter | October 11, 2007 11:36 PM

You'd think they would blur out Langley, or NSA, or the Pentagon, or Andrews Air Force Base . . . but they don't.

I wouldn't be surprised if the photos of any of these sites is doctored. For a while the White House's roof was entirely scrambled. Now you can see more detail, but the appearance of the tops roof on the wings looks vaguely like what they had before. Also note that the picture of the Capitol is from when there was apparently some construction.

And yeah, who cares? Secret Service has legitimate reasons to desire such things. In other respects, of course, Cheney seems to value his own privacy in a way that he doesn't value that of others.

Posted by Mike | October 12, 2007 3:28 AM

The OVP isn't some recent super-secret weapons testing facility. Everybody in DC has an idea where it is. Any terrorist could probably just buy a map of DC if they wished to strike it. Terrorism took place before Google Maps because of things called "maps" and "casing the joint." This is just an ego trip on Cheney's part.

Posted by Reality Man | October 12, 2007 4:00 AM

Oddly, the image of my house is blurred on Google Maps--maybe some of their images are just blurry?

Posted by rea | October 12, 2007 7:11 AM

Google maps has actually not done anything. For security reasons, the VP residence itself has been blurred.

Posted by Njorl | October 12, 2007 10:52 AM

Funny I guess but the VP residence has been blurred on satelite maps since before Bush/Cheney. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing this on MapQuest in like 1999.

Posted by Jack | October 12, 2007 1:56 PM