Indian court urged to 'ban Google Earth' Legal advocates have petitioned an Indian court to ban Google Earth following intelligence indicating the satellite imaging site was used to plan last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai that killed 170 people. Advocate Amit Karkhanis told India's High Court the free service "aids terrorists in plotting attacks" by providing …
Wheels, now, *they* should be banned. How many wheels were used for the trains that took people to die in Auschwitz/Birkenau or Siberia? That's a truly evil technology, that is.
Idiots FTW...
Good job Indians as a whole are stronger and more sensible than the bunch of wankers starting this litigation. They'll survive this, and worse, as a nation.
"Google earth didn't give them much more than any tourist street map..."
I can only assume you've never had to deal with an indian tourist map or indeed road map. Using one is the quickest way to a padded room short of putting your underpants on your head, two pencils up your nose and saying 'wibble'.
"As The Times points out, investigators believe the gunmen who stormed Mumbai in late November used a wide array of high-tech gizmos to carry out their assault, including GPS systems to navigate by sea, mobile phones with multiple SIM cards, and possibly Blackberry web browsers to monitor events as they unfolded"
Ban high-tech gizmos
Ban GPS
Ban Mobile phones
Ban Blackberry
So you ban GE and everyone in India can't use it. Well the last time I checked, most criminals for that is what terrorist is still, didn't really give a monkeys about the law, hence how they got their name. So they will simply get a mate of a mate to get the info or find a way to bypass checks and get what they want.
Guns are illegal in the UK without a license. Well that doesn't seem to stop some nutters on Manchester housing estates from blowing each other away does it?
The driver with no license, no insurance and a stolen car is banned from driving for 3 years after he mounts pavement and injures someone! Well not having a fecking license didn't stop him before, it's unlikely to fecking stop him now, is it?!
Lets be honest, if we knew what the next terrorist target was, we'd defend it not block it on google earth. So by blocking what "we" think is a security risk, we move the danger to another location, and then we'll be removing anything else and just be left with views of fields, which will eventually be removed because someon could poisen the crops geneticly modify it etc....
any asshole can file a lawsuit. I'm surprised so many readers are too daft to know the difference.
an indian policeman died clutching a terrorists ak-47/56, enabling the terrorist to be captured alive. how does that compare with shooting an unarmed brazilian civilian in a railway station?
Yes, I'm indian. So find mistakes in my grammar or punctuation.
No, I'm not kidding.
1. If the magnitude of this tragedy might have been reduced by firearms in the hands of private people then now is the perfect time and the Mumbai attack the perfect platform to make my point.
2. A world-renowned advocate of private ownership of firearms was, in fact, an Indian: Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." See Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 (Beacon Press paperback edition)
3. You complain that I have not provided a source for saying that Indian law enforcement refused to engage but then fail conveniently to provide a source for your claim that the U.S. "has more urban gun crime and related fatalities than the rest of the world put together."
Here's mine: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862839,00.html
"Sebastian d'Souza, a photographer from the Mumbai Mirror who took the chilling pictures of one of the terrorists training his weapons on Mumbai's main railway station, watched the attack from a train carriage. 'There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything,' he said he told the Independent. 'I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them.'"
Where's yours, please? I agree that you should be offended, but it should be directed at those with the responsibility to act who refused to do so and not at the one pointing their failure out to you.
4. There are many reliable reports, police and otherwise, of armed civilians successfully defending themselves from armed attackers. Just how do you tell, in the excitement of the moment, whether your attacker would be regarded as a terrorist? What difference does it make in any case?
5. You do not have sufficient information, and you should know that you do not, to evaluate my degree of ignorance. El Reg's comment section is hardly the proper venue for much more reference material than I provide here in this post.
>2. A world-renowned advocate of private ownership of firearms was, in fact, an Indian: Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi.
Because if Gandhi said it, it must be true?
A world-renowned advocate racisim was, in fact, an Indian: Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi.
Do you also support race relocation, purity of race? blacks being subhuman?
Alan, you are a fucktard, the kind of person who will use any soundbite or soapbox to spout drivel, shush.... you're a fool.
"...seriously I think most governments would rather have terrorist target a military installation than some crowded marketplace."
Call me an old tin-foil hat wearing cynical paranoid delusionist if you will, but...really? Are you sure?
Civilians are cheap and a few dead ones are an excellent way of keeping the fear levels way up there. All good for the continued creeping imposition of the police state.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
