Reading Response 2

#1

While I do believe that it is my right to decide whether or not my private home displayed in a "Virtual Globe," I do not believe that companies developing this software should have to actively go out and get the expressed permission of each individual. The company should only have to go as far as raising awareness that people have the option to have any private information removed. It is no different than a phone book. People can choose to have their information listed and if they make no attempt contacting the company then they are allowing the company to include their information. The security risk involved with such a piece of software is minimal considering that the software is only one of many different means of obtaining the same information. The information is out there, the program only seeks to aggregate it. Control and access should be given in part to all those individuals who are contained within the software.

#2

The Manhattan Timeformations website offers a wide range of information and perspectives on the history and development of Manhattan. The website is very interactive and allows the user to see how Manhattan has changed over a span of a few centuries with the click of a button. Similar sites that offer such historical information aren't nearly as detailed or interactive. The site allows users to activate/deactivate any particular instance (or combinations thereof) in time as well as certain areas of development. For example a user can see how many office buildings were present between 1893-1916 as well as the layout of subway tunnels.

1. I believe that having pictures of the earth is no problem. A lot of people use Google Earth and enjoy seeing what their houses look like from the satellite images. However, if these images get more in-depth and can start to see people and the chores they do, it has been taken too far. If you can see someone's home and have the ability to see things that people consider private and personal then people's rights to privacy come into controversy. If a company takes a photo with a private home or other personal features of someone's life, they should either cut it out of the image or ask permission to use the photo. I believe companies should be able to monitor who comes into their building for security purposes only. With new technology, people have the ability to track you down and watch what you do everyday. I think precautions should be taken so that these possibilities are minimized. If this type of technology exists there should also be technology to counter it.
2. Most maps only offer the birds-eye-view perspective. This technology truly gives a three-dimensional view of this part of the world. And it culminates the buildings and structures from different years. This view of Manhatten lets one see how it has been developed over the last 115 years. Instead of only seeing one point of view from one time period, as ordinary maps show, this map is versatile and shows the layers of Manhatten, the buildings and highways, as well as the changes it has undergone over time. Along with this information, one can begin to understand how people have changed the landscape of Manhatten into what it is today.

I remember in High school looking at Google maps and how an industrial park right next to our school was blurred out and being angry about it. But in reality, I think that any person, company, or country should be able to exclude themselves from these global maps. Sure it can be an invasion of privacy if the lenses get better and are able to zoom in far enough. As long as the images are zoomed in only to the point where the general landscape is noticeable legal issues should not be an issue. But there are of course private government buildings, and other things that should not be visible.

2. I think that the visualizations are based on a educated historical perspective. It is not necessarily a glamorous simulation to look at. At first i was expecting detailed images of the buildings so one could recognize which one is which, but its more of the island as a whole that is the focus. Its purpose is to show the development of the city over the years in an effective way instead of an appealing way. It also shows information such as landfills, piers, and who lived where at what times.

-Prompt1-
I do not believe limits should really be placed on companies' ability to capture and market images of the earth. It would be too complicated and too much of a hassle to get each individuals' permission. Although the company could raise awareness about being taken off the map, how many people would actually come across this option or know that the option exists. Many people probably don't realize how much of their information is available to others. It is only when the programs connect these images to other information that it becomes a problem. For instance, it was discussed how on the website Fundrace, an address could be typed in and one could see which candidates their neighbors were supporting, and how much they gave. So while there should not be limits placed on capturing images, there should be limits place on what type of information can be accessed.
-Prompt2-
The website helps show the development of Manhattan over time three-dimensionally. The site is very detailed and allows the user to choose different time periods or structural changes to the city. Interactivity allows the user to see what they want or do not want to see. To see the development of the city another way, one might have to use an assortment of maps from different time periods and then compare each of the maps to see what has changed. For some, this would be very difficult to visualize or find what has changed. Therefore these visualizations provide the individual with a better view of how Manhattan has changed.

It is rather difficult to ascertain whether or not a technology with such a potential impact can remain legitimate upon entering the public domain without violating at least one right of every citizen. Issues of legality would certainly be raised, ranging anywhere from a call for new guidelines of right to privacy, to a simple (loosely speaking, and rather ludicrous) extension of copyright pertaining to the digital imaging of property. It would be unreasonable to suggest any means of litigation would halt a corporate endeavor for access to profitable information, and would thus require heavy restrictions in terms of organization accessibility and information publication with severe penalties associated with a violation of this. This level of confidentiality should most certainly apply to private property, and require warrants for the release of such data. Ideally, a federal institution should have control over such technology, although a private corporation or conglomerate heavily tied to a federal institution both financially and legally would help to ensure proper data confidentiality and management.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Manhattan Transformation is essentially found in the core design of the map. Using one dynamic diagram, we are presented with the change in socioeconomic growth and how it is relative to advancements with technology within a click of a mouse button. All of this can be portrayed numerous ways, and for numerous historical periods which serve as reference points. Using standard two dimensional data charts or graphs, this flexible element would be considerably more complicated to visualize, as much of the regional value would be lost in the translation process.

1) I think that most information should be pretty wide open. If the government tries to regulate, then only the government will have this information, and the possibility of a police state is too high. As long as these images are not exposing the insides of a private home, I don't think this poses much of a threat, since one could see the outside of any home by traveling there anyways. Anyone who wishes to should be able to get this information, so that it is not used only by a single entity, which would most likely be the government, to spy on people.

2) These representations show a side view, as opposed to most maps that just show a view looking down onto the city. One can also see how the land has developed over the years. It is quite surprising how much farmland was once on the island. The ability to see the time period when the buildings were constructed is the main piece of information that this format adds. It seems like something is not quite right in the maps. Maybe they could be explained a little better.

Question 1
A company should not be able to capture and market images of the earth if the image shows actions of people. If an image is able to show what people are doing, then someone who owns the picture may be able to use that image as blackmail if a person is in a compromising position or place. If a company uses images that contain private images or structures, but does not use the image to make money, then I do not see a problem with it. The exception to that thinking is if the company using the images portrays all the different images in the same way; such as for a GPS system that shows all the available seafood restaurants. No one should be able to have access to informative images that show someone cheating or any other situation of that type, but I do believe that the government should be able to use images that would help protect the nation or to catch criminals.
Question 2
These visualizations provide the prospective from both the birds eye view, street level view, and the subterranean view. These visualizations also let individuals see which different buildings were built during certain time periods and allows individuals to see these time periods all together or one by one or even building on top of each other, whereas most maps would only be able to show one specific time period of building growth. These visualizations reveal multiple time periods as well as multiple city structure types allowing someone to see exactly what they want to see without having to deal with a lot of clutter. In other words, these visualizations allow the viewer to have access to the information they want, nothing more, nothing less.

1.) I agree with Mr. Fawaz above that federal regulation, or at least third party oversight, should be applied in the area of satellite imaging, although I retain a hearty distrust of the government. Issues that come to my mind involving inappropriate use of this kind of information range from employment to unsolicited marking. For instance, it's not unusual now for employers and managers to read the personal blogs or web sites of prospective employees, and pass judgment based on a few lines of text. I don't see why the same people couldn't take a high resolution image of an applicants house and form an opinion on the individual based on, say, the neatness and health of his/her lawn, the size of the house, the quality of the adjoining houses, what kind of car he/she drives, if he/she parties every night, and the list could go on and on.

I also agree with glmaster in the first post. Imaging information can, I'm sure, be used for many beneficial things, and companies shouldn't be restricted too harshly in their pursuit of it. But seriously, why would anyone possibly have a valid reason to want to know whether you plant petunias or rhododendrons...?

2.) The animated models present a graphically and conceptually coherent representation of many varying sets of data together in one map. What strikes me the most is the ability of the map to present qualitative, quantitative, categorical, and non categorical variables/data sets together, although granted some of these different data sets are inherently related to each other. The visualizations give you a historical, topographical, racially demographic, and economic zoning perspective, among other things. Nice piece of work.

1. I think this type of capability has gone to far. With companies like Google and their Google Earth and its' many counterparts or advances, or Mapquest etc. I don't think they should have the freedom to display such detail in such a magnification. Although, Mapquest's quality imaging is pretty poor anyways, but in any sense it's just creeping down on privacy issues. As far as limitations towards the safety of privacy it won't necessarily matter. I mean one way or another if someone wanted someone else's address, they could get it. In any case maybe limiting how far any global imaging application can actually go, significantly. Having the option to have your property voided from the imaging of those locations would be nice only because more than likely the average user would just look at building structures (business or residential) for mild amusement that this kind of capability is available so easily. Other than that it really wouldn't matter for the more morbid situations. Moving on, as for responsibility for controlling access I think it should be up to the people, but other options are there to be discussed. How about the companies themselves be held responsible for the access, or let the government step in to settle on restrictions or liabilities even?

2. Manhattan Timeformations give coherent information of Manhattan's development over a large span of time. Not only that it also presents it to you in a layered form to show its' flexibility for the viewer to see specific development. I thought it kind of interesting that it mapped out a couple of specific orientation settlements, British Colonization and Dutch settlements. Nothing really major, but giving the time period they offer that demographic. It's a nice piece of work, the fly-through was undesirably short, but stellar nonetheless.

1. I believe that we are heading in the right direction with this technology. Granted the some of the information gathered from these maps can be sensitive but the goverment has put guidelines on them. After a satalite has taken pictures the goverment reviews all of them and whipes out and areas that would be concidered a threat to national security. For example if you use google maps and you go over any US military base like norfolk its is all black. I think that these maps are no diffrent than paper maps. You still could go around with a map and mark locations of objects of intrest or where you recieved donation money. These maps from satalites are just a higher resolution maps.

2. These maps are 4D maps because that illistrate over time. These 3D renderings show the information of manhattan island over 100 years and how it has evolved. The renderings give you the perspective of where manhattan was and were it is going. I think this perspective is essential for the future because we can see where we can future develop our resources.

1. To tell you the truth the whole digital map concept makes me a bit nervous but it could just be a fear spawned from too many late night X-File episodes. I think that there should indeed be a limit of what the average citizen should be able to look at. I think private houses, companies and etc should have the opportunity to exclude themselves from being capture in images of earth. I believe that some things are private for a reason and should stay that way. We shouldn not know where celebrities live, they have enough stalkers as is.

Who should have access to this? I think if it is used for the right reasons, such as security. It could be used by government, law enforcement, etc. The government though, according to people, spy on us enough so maybe this isn't a good idea.

I don't know, I'm such a fence-sitter about a lot of issues, because I see the pros and cons and my mind is too open. I think that if this is given to the wider audience it should have restrictions. I feel as long as its not used to watch me do my laundry or shower, I am cool. I basically think it should be used for location and not as way to watch human action.

2. What I initially like about the website was the part where you could click on different types of buildings and it would add layer upon layer (i.e. I saw the historical districts then added Commercial Zones). I also liked the fly through application. The map is plain but allows you to see how a populated area today started out as farmland. This map allows you to manipulate what you want to be seen or not want to be seen; you are able to see history in the making. I think it would have been interesting to pinpoint important buildings or interesting monuments that viewers would recognize. I think it would make it a little more personal. I think if it got too detailed though it would lose its readability.

Question One

What are the Limits
Satellite imagery on the public web helps travelers or people fascinated with architecture to view there destination or item of interest by a different perspective. The only limit I believe is necessary for public access is prohibition of hourly frame by frame update images. There is no reason any common person requires to see an area of interest updated so rapidly. This could lead to unhealthy practices such as; stocking, kidnapping, terrorism, etc. Hourly update satellite imagery should only be accessed to respected government home security organization personal.

Permission to show homes or other structures
There should not be special permission for homes or other structures of private property, because this privacy could be misused towards dangerous causes. On whitepages.com if you type in your Name, City, and State you live at. You will be able to get a map of your home. Towards the bottom left hand corner you will see a box containing a link that says “Is this you? Remove your listing.” This link will lead you a “Listing removal Info”

The information that you provide on this page will only be used to remove your name and contact information from our public listings and will not be used for any marketing purposes…

This is appropriate for people whom do not want their address or their exterior home frame visible for the public. Other then using their homes for governmental purposes or other security reasons, I think this option that whitepages.com offers is appropriate.

Who should have access
Personal that has governmental regulation and permission from a higher position should have the ability to view the exterior of whatever building they find necessary to solve their case or purpose. The general public should not have this type of regulations because it could lead to unhealthy habits (as stated prior).

Question Two

The visualization perspective represented in this website introduces a more intimate and interactive relation over a major city’s geographical integration. The website gives the navigator the opportunity to add or subtract geologic formation, settlement patterns, landfill transportation, communication infrastructure zoning laws, and real estate cycles through six different time ranges.

Unlike whitepages.com or google.maps.com this website represents the city in a 3D interactive map. Not like anything I have seen before, this site gives you the opportunity to see topography, subway route, and building settlements all at the same time and more. You could choose from a variety of modern settlement factors to appear individually or combined certain settlements with others.

1) Limits that need to be enforced are the marketing of people based off these images...for example, say you capture an image of a guy coming out of a strip club and then the company uses this picture for some sort of marketing idea...overall the marketing of people based off these images needs to be limited in some way...also the marketing of images of other companies needs to be limited....these brings me to the next point, I think that permission of a private homeowner and or company must be given before using the images in any type of advertising or marketing campaign.
I think everyone should be given access to these types of images, because security issues have already been overlooked with the use of "reverse lookup", so adding a picture to the already given information can't do much more harm

2) These perspectives give you an idea of the magnitude of Manhattan not on just on plane but on multiple. Flat maps give you a sense of the width and length of a city but you still miss the actual height of the building which helps key you in to the magnitude of both the physical size of the city and the size of the population in a given area!

As far as the purpose of the map concern, I believe it is enough to just have the image to represent some symbolic icons to the map so that everyone can refer to it and say ‘oh! Here we are’.
I think it is best for the government to pass the regulation to make sure that the map that is produced has only the sole purpose to do its job, which is in this case I believe is to locate certain landmarks and gives an approximate image representative of how it looks like from above.
However the technology allow, I suggest iconic representation of buildings is enough for this case. Not the real actual picture that is taken by satellite.
Although I am skeptical about the government, but if there is a security concern or any spying issue, I believe the government would be the best people to have this responsibility, since we already trust them with a lot of personal information anyway.

This website gives a big range of information as how the city transformed over time. It does not only gives us the map location on how the location of each landmark on the map. But also it gives us an insight map of how the land is developed over time.
I liked the fact that the website allows the user to click a button and navigate through time to see how the process runs overtime. This is a very big advantage for me, because now it makes the map more interactive and not just static map.
It also allows us to do a lot of further analysis over the Manhattan area. Because the site allows us to select (by activate/deactivate) any particular instance in a range of time period to see certain areas of development.

1. From one sense, I feel like there shouldn't be any limits on the ability to capture and market images of the earth. My reasoning for that is that I feel like no one person can truly own the earth. We may have a bit of it that we can do with what we like, but we really don't own it. But, when I look at it and think of the security issues, I think that the government should be able to look over the images and blur out areas that may be of a security risk. But at the same time, in doing that, people can tell where there's something weird going on, so I don't really know how that helps. I think that maybe the way this could work is that companies have to register with the government in order to post these types of images. This way the government can work with the company in order to make sure that there aren't any security risks and that people can use this for convenience, and just for fun.

2. The Manhattan Timeformations website shows perspectives that other maps do not. Most other maps are just the top view. This provides multiple angles creating a 3d environment of the buildings. The options for viewing create another aspect that give you much more information than other maps. Although it may not tell you road names and stuff like that, it provides historical information. It shows how things grew in the Manhattan area over time. Not only does it show how it grew, but it also shows you how the development of technology grew over time. It shows how the ideas of trains, roadways, and subways developed. You can also turn on and off different things and make it easier to see where certain areas are.

1. I think the limits for the companies' ability to market images of the earth depend on many different things. If you are familiar with Google's "Street view", it was made using a specialized van that had multiple camera's on it, and by going to maps.google.com you can view images that reenact driving down the same streets that this van drove. It start with major cities, like my hometown in NYC, but now it is expanding, and I believe even Purdue University is on there. Since these images were taken with a van driving on public roads, only showing things in public view, I see no problems with this what so ever. The same goes for satellite images taken from outer space. I do believe that there has to be some limits however. I know that there are probably government parks and other places that I can think of (ex: nuclear plant) that they might not want to show on there because of fears of terrorist attacks and what not. It is hard to think of what to do in a situation like this, except maybe have a disclaimer that if there is anything shown on the site that someone feels uncomfortable with, it can be taken down. Thats the only thing I can think of that may work due to not having a "world police" or enforcement or anything of the such.

2. I found the Manhattan Timeformations website to be extremely interesting, mainly due to the fact that I grew up in Manhattan, and it is nice to see the roots of the city. I think that this has a lot more meaning to me and anyone else who may have lived there at one point, because I know what it looks like now and I can actually picture these "structures". Either way, I found that it was an amazingly put-together 3D creation of the history of Manhattan. I have personally never seen any site like this ever before in my life, and it amazes me how much information is gathered in this one site. I believe that one perspective that these visualizations provide that others might not is the 3D aspect, and also the history. You can view separate maps of different structures at specific time periods; something that I never dreamed imaginable. I find this information to be extremely helpful, and could think of many instances that this could help someone who was doing research on the history of the city.

1 I feel that the current state of virtual globes is fine. If the technology increases where the detail and zoom can be better, then I think there will be a problem. Right now you can really only zoom in and see structures at maximum zoom. This is no different from what you would see if you walked by a building or flew over it with a plane. But if it gets too detailed where you can see things that you would have to trespass on a property to see then I feel trespassing has taken place. I also feel that individuals should have the right to remove there property from the virtual globe if desired, just as they can remove themselves from being listed in a phone book.

2 This is a very neat program that allows you to see how the city has changed and evolved over time. You can see how it has grown and the new things that have been added to the city. This is a very useful way to compile data about a city to learn about its past and its evolution. I wish that this tool could be used on more cities to be able to see how they use to be in the past.

The ability to look over the whole world and zoom down to see even people is a tremendous ability. I have used this many times through google earth to see places I would have otherwise never seen, the san andreas fault, island build in the UAE, and assorted out of the way locations. From an intellectual's perspective, the blocking off of places is a ban on my ability to learn about a region. On the other hand, the thought of someone viewing the area around my house and making plans for a robbery would make anyone apprehensive. I would say that homes and structures should not be offlimits to view, as you can see these without permission in real life. However, people should not be identifiable by the average user, the tracking possibilities infringe too much into the private lives of citizens.

The Manhattan Timeformations is an interesting set of visualizations, allowing me to see connections between seemingly unrelated subjects, one example is a majority of the parks and monuments are near areas of urban renewal. Also, it is interesting to see the migration and decline of office buildings. I would never have known there were so few offices currently in Manhattan.

1. I don't think we have yet reached a point where companies should be limited in their abilities to capture and market images of earth. Most of the programs out there only give views from satellites, which is a top view. Although some have great detail, (also keeping in mind that the government has much more detail), they are images of tops of houses, buildings, and the land. In essence, everything that can be seen with these programs can be seen without the use of the programs. If you go out for a walk around campus, then you will have seen most of what Google Earth for example can see. The remaining portions are rooftops, which have been seen from commercial planes and even the students trying to become pilots. In effect these companies are offering a service which only makes it easier and more convenient to view the earth as it is. Once again images from private homes and structures don't have 'no fly zones' within miles of visibility, so they can be seen from a plane, blimp, or anything of the sort. Companies should be able to use whatever they can normally see from an airplane. Aerial images do not pose security issues because if someone was going to perform an act of terrorism, for example, he or she would be willing to visit their target in person, or find maps, or perform a flyover. All aerial images would simply be the same thing that he or she already had access to. The only point at which this becomes a problem is when we are able to see inside of buildings or cars.

2. Einstein helped us to realize that time is the 4th dimension. Maps have always been created that allow passage through the three spatial dimensions, but most do not allow passage through time. This perspective is very unique and allows a state of 'Elo Tempore,' which is incredible. Being able to see the progress through time as you sit at your computer is an oustanding representation of the data. Also being able to overlay the different types of maps to see a map catered to your specifications gives the map that much more versatility. Maps, as stated in the American Life audio, portray all elements of a single idea and disregard everything else. This map has such a large number of possible maps inside of it which allows for that much more information to be obtained. Most noteworthy would be the ability to see the city's evolution through time.