Ogle Earth

• An "Anti-Genocide Paparazzi": Clooney, Pitt and Hollywood Pals Help Monitor Sudan From Above – TIME
  www.satsentinel.org to launch today; will monitor South Sudan in near real-time, with satellite imagery analysed by AAAS's Lars Bromley and Harvard Humanitarian Initiative.

  '"We are the antigenocide paparazzi," Clooney tells TIME. "We want them to enjoy the level of celebrity attention that I usually get. If you know your actions are going to be covered, you tend to behave much differently than when you operate in a vacuum."'

• Grad Student Watches Gitmo Grow With Google Earth | Magazine

Wikileaks and The New York Times today released a set of US foreign service cables that document the various ways in which the Chinese government has purportedly sought to influence, harass, infiltrate and outright block Google’s operations in China. The cables date from 2006 to early 2010, from the earliest days of Google’s entry into China’s censored search engine market to just around the time the company decided to pull the plug early this year.

The cable most relevant to this blog is the earliest one in the set, dated November 7, 2006, titled “PRC claims high resolution imagery on Google Earth could aid terrorist attacks on China“. It reports on a meeting between the US embassy in Beijing and an unnamed Chinese government representative, who wanted the US government to “take action to get Google to reduce the resolution of the Google Earth images of China’s military, nuclear, space, energy and other sensitive government agency installations in order to deprive terrorists of potentially dangerous information”.

The cable confirms several suspicions that various posts on Ogle Earth have speculated on these past 5 years. Namely:

1. China tried to pressure Google to censor not just content inside China, but for all users around the world. First, it wanted to “reduce the resolution of the images of China’s sensitive facilities” in Google Earth. Second, it was concerned about the ability of users to freely annotate Google Earth imagery, for example using Google Earth Community:

Moreover, Google Earth allows users to post information about specific locations, –––– –––– continued, which means information about important Chinese agencies and sensitive installations is effectively being published on the Internet.

To Google’s credit, there is no evidence that it subsequently caved in to these demands, and there have been no reports of Chinese territory losing imagery resolution or annotations in Google Earth. Even more surprising, to this day Google Earth is accessible inside China without needing recourse to a VPN.

However, the ultimate price Google paid is no longer being able to operate as a search engine player on the mainland; and this was always the fear — that once Google had sufficient resources invested in China, the Chinese government might hold these investments hostage when wanting specific concessions from Google. Several of the other cables released today specify precisely what kind of pressure Google weathered from the Chinese government and its proxies in business, media and even from among hackers.

Why did China think the US government might be able to influence Google? China’s argument:

While Google is a private company it operates in the United States “political and legal environment.”

In China, all major companies align themselves with the Communist Party when matters perceived to be of national interest are at stake. (Read The Party for some stunning insights into how Chinese corporations and the government are intertwined. I highly recommend the book.) The US embassy official points out that in the US, this is not how it works: Google is a private company, he argues; i.e., it can’t be compelled to do things by the government that it is not legally required to do.

Ironically, within two months that statement would be false. In January 2007, after pressure from the US and UK military, the most up-to-date Digital Globe imagery from Iraq was removed from Google Earth (and subsequently from the DigitalGlobe dataset), because of reports that insurgents were buying CDs of Google Earth imagery in the markets of Basra, so as to better target their RPGs inside UK bases. It was a clear case of Google aligning with the perceived interests of the allied forces in Iraq, rather than being a neutral documentarian. (Since 2007, there have been no new imagery updates for Iraq and Afghanistan in Google Earth — possibly because DigitalGlobe and other suppliers no longer offer it.)

Even if you think that in this case censorship was justified, there is no denying that it weakened the plausibility of the US government’s response to China. Of course the US can compel Google, a company that is part of the “US political and legal environment,” to censor if perceived US national interests are at stake. Perceived Chinese national interests just don’t make the cut, sorry. It is no wonder then that China soon tried to engage in its own acts of compulsion — which ended up making Google’s life in China so difficult it decided to quit the search business there.

2. The Chinese representative mentions that China is not the only country wanting its sensitive locations censored, but is unwilling to name other countries:

He offered that China had been in discussions with other countries with similar concerns about Google Earth. However, –––– –––– refused to provide the names of the other countries, noting he was unable to share the information due to prior agreements with those countries.

We can make some educated guesses, though: China was not the first country to complain about Google Earth. In March 2006, India had already made a push at the UN for new treaty law restricting the publication of satellite imagery, though without gaining traction. In late 2005 Thai generals, the Russian military and South Korea’s Ministry of Defense had all reacted with alarm to seeing their bases on Google Earth. Of these countries, India would prove the most resilient to Google’s argument that the imagery was already available to all comers via Digital Globe and other providers, so that censoring Google Earth would serve no purpose.

If I had to bet, then, I’d guess that China and India engaged in bilateral discussions during 2006 on ways to contain Google Earth.

Below is the cable in its entirety, for reference:

Continue reading →

• Institute for Science and International Security: Satellite Image Shows Syrian Site Functionally Related to Al Kibar Reactor

Google Earth 6 is out. Go get it here. Google Lat Long has the announcement.

So what’s new?

1. Seamless Street View: Wherever LIDAR has been used, Street View has now turned into a seamlessly navigable 3D mirror world. No longer do you “hop” from panorama to panorama in discreet steps — instead, you can now glide through a world where the Street View imagery has been painted onto a LIDAR model of the surroundings; as you navigate around, whichever panorama is closest gets used automatically as the backdrop. It’s a really cool effect and it will likely grab all the headlines. To get started, drag the yellow pegman to a place on Earth that has LIDAR-enhanced Street View.
2. 3D virtual trees: A cosmetic addition that doesn’t do much for me, but if you’re going to build a faithful mirror world, you’re going to need virtual trees, right? There’s plenty of different species to reflect the local flora, but that doesn’t stop it from obscuring the satellite imagery, which is what I came for. This feature will be turned off in my copy of GE6.
3. Accessible historical imagery: Easily the single greatest improvement to Google Earth since its launch in 2005 has been the addition of historical imagery, added in February 2009 with the release of GE5. Google Earth 6 doesn’t have anything new of this caliber but it does make the historical imagery more accessible to casual users by placing pointers to the data front-and-center on the screen. Until now, the forensic neogeographer had to use the historical imagery tool to see what if any older imagery was available; in GE6, the year of the oldest imagery for any given view is visible below the scale legend; click the year to be taken directly to that imagery.

The rest of Google Earth is pretty much the same, a sign that this application is maturing. I’m still hoping for a future release where the KML files in Google Earth’s My Places sidebar sync through the cloud with Google Maps’ My Maps and mobile Google Earth for iOS and Android. This has the added benefit of making hosted publishing possible — you could just choose to “share” a particular KML file with the world and get a URL in return, just as you do with My Maps now.

In the meantime, however, you won’t find me complaining about the greatest piece of free software this side of NCSA Mosaic.

• 2nd Star of David 'uncovered' in Tehran – Israel News, Ynetnews
  An outbreak of Star of David pareidolia in Tehran, made possible by the ever-sharper imagery in Google Earth.
• International Water Law Project Blog » Costa Rica Institutes Proceedings in ICJ against Nicaragua Over Río San Juan Conflict
  Everything you've ever wanted to know on river accretion vs. river avulsion, and how they differ under international law when a river determines a border.
• Exploring Local » Reference and Authority in Online Mapping
  TeleMapics' Mike Dobson on the difference between authoritative, trusted and exhaustive mapping, and where Google falls (vs where it should be). Good point about how letting "local market expectations" determine mapping decisions sounds like a very bad idea.
• Dave's Landslide Blog
  Niche blog, anyone? Comes with copious use of Google Earth to scope the areas in question.

• Google image helps civic body identify illegal Dahisar structure – The Times of India
  Google Earth imagery trumps official documents in an Indian court!

  'The owner of the [recently built illegal] private structure had claimed that his building was included in a local census carried out in 1978. He had even produced documentary evidence from the collector's office in support of the claim. "But when we compared images from 2000 with those in 2010, provided to us by a citizen's group, we found that the land was vacant at the time."'

Considering that Bricoleurbanism is a blog which:

1. Painstakingly details the changing cityscapes of China and Southeast Asia and elsewhere;
2. Often uses detailed before-and-after shots from Google Earth;

I really do not know why I have not come across it sooner. It’s got some fabulous posts, for example on the razing of old Tianjin, or the disappearance of Shanghai’s Wujiang Lu food street (whose last days I also saw), or on the Mina tent city in Mecca.

I only found out about Bricoleurbanism because its (anonymous) author wrote up my earlier post about Kashgar. I’m glad to see somebody else is keeping tabs on the fast-changing nature of Asia’s cities. I strongly recommend a visit.

The eastern third of the border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica is determined by the course of the Río San Juan as it wends its way eastward towards the Caribbean Sea. In the final 20-odd kilometers, the river splits into two, with the border following the smaller, northernmost strand. (The southern strand is considered to be a different river, the Río Colorado.) These two rivers delineate the delta island Isla Calero, Costa Rica’s largest.

The mutual border was determined by the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of Limits in 1858, after a series of military escapades between the two countries motivated in part by the Rio San Juan being a candidate for a trans-isthmus canal. According to the terms of the treaty, the south bank of the river is Costa Rican territory but the river itself is Nicaraguan. Costa Rica has the right to use the river for commerce.

Differing interpretations of the treaty led US president Grover Cleveland to arbitrate the continuing dispute, ruling in 1888 (in the “Laudo Cleveland” or Cleveland Award (PDF)) that Costa Rica did not have the right to patrol the river with military ships. This same document also resolved that Punta de Castilla, “at the mouth of the San Juan River”, is where the border runs into the sea. In 1897, a more technical arbitration (PDF) by E.P. Alexander (at the behest of Cleveland) delineated the border with greater precision near the coast:

The dispute flared up again this century, with Costa Rica in 2005 complaining to the International Court of Justice that Nicaragua was unfairly restricting access to the river. The Court’s ruling, delivered in 2009, was Solomonic: It ruled that Costa Rica cannot resupply its armed police border posts by river, but also that Nicaragua cannot demand visas from Costa Rican tourists traveling along the river.

You’d think this ruling would end any possibility of further border disputes. In any case, the official maps of both Nicaragua and Costa Rica do not dispute the border:

Section of Nicaraguan national map

Section of Costa Rica’s national map

The maps delivered by both countries to the ICJ as recently as 2006-2007 are not in dispute either:

Map provided by Costa Rica to the ICJ

Map provided by Nicaragua to the ICJ

Nevertheless, during the second half of October 2010, Nicaraguan troops set up camp on Isla Calero, on the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan river just a few kilometers from where it reaches the Caribbean, raised the Nicaraguan flag, and then began tree clearing and dredging operations which are still ongoing. Their aim, so it seems, is to clear a channel that reflects what Nicaragua believes might have been the course of the river back in the 1850s.

How to justify such an apparently blatant incursion? The clearest explanation I’ve found of the Nicaraguan position comes directly from Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega himself, as reported in the Tico Times:

Ortega said the Costa Rica border has been steadily encroaching northward for hundreds of years, as the San Juan River delta slowly dries out. However, he said, even though the historic river mouth has dried, it is still Nicaraguan territory.

“In the 1600s and 1700s, the river covered an enormous amount of territory at its delta,” Ortega said. “And as the zone has dried, the river has moved and (Costa Rica) has continued to advance and take possession of terrain that doesn’t belong to it. The way things are going, if the San Juan River continues to move north and join with the Río Grande of Matagalpa (in the northern zone), that’s how far (Costa Rica) would claim its territory extended.”

Ortega stressed that according to the July 2009 resolution from the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Nicaragua has the right to recuperate the historic delta of the San Juan River that existed more than 150 years ago.

“Nicaragua has the right to dredge the San Juan River to recover the flow of waters that existed in 1858, even if that affects the flow of water of other current recipients, such as the Colorado River,” Ortega said, reading from last year’s resolution for The Hague.

The section of the ICJ ruling Ortega refers to is worth quoting at length. It doesn’t concern the main question of the ruling, but regards an additional declaration that Nicaragua wanted the ICJ to adopt in its ruling:

153. Nicaragua adds a further submission. It requests the Court “to make a formal declaration on the issues raised by Nicaragua in Section II of Chapter VII of her Counter-Memorial, [and] in Section I, Chapter VI of her Rejoinder”.

The declaration requested is the following:

“[(i) ... (iv) redacted]

(v) Nicaragua has the right to dredge the San Juan in order to return the flow of water to that obtaining in 1858 even if this affects the flow of water to other present day recipients of this flow such as the Colorado River.”

[...]

155. As for the fifth point to be addressed in the requested “declaration”, on the assumption that it is in the nature of a counter-claim, Costa Rica has cast doubt on its admissibility, arguing that it is not “directly connected” with the subject-matter of Costa Rica’s claim, within the meaning of Article 80 of the Rules of Court. The same issue could arise in respect of the third point.

In any event it suffices for the Court to observe that the two questions thus raised were settled in the decision made in the Cleveland Award. It was determined in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the third clause of the Award that Costa Rica is not bound to share in the expenses necessary to improve navigation on the San Juan river and that Nicaragua may execute such works of improvement as it deems suitable, provided that such works do not seriously impair navigation on tributaries of the San Juan belonging to Costa Rica.

As Nicaragua has offered no explanation why the Award does not suffice to make clear the Parties’ rights and obligations in respect of these matters, its claim in this regard must be rejected.

Clearly, the Court rejected Nicaragua’s request to add its proposed text to the ruling. But it is also now clear that Nicaragua has chosen to interpret the Court’s reaffirmation of the Cleveland Award as a legal go-ahead to clear and dredge those channels it claims were commercial waterways in 1858, even if these subsequently silted up as the course of the San Juan river shifted over the past 150 years.

Costa Rica has complained to the Organization of American States, but Nicaragua argues that the only body fit to rule on the issues is the ICJ. Since another ruling from that court would take approximately 3 years from start to finish, presumably this gives Nicaragua enough time to finish whatever waterworks it deems necessary. Considering that Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948, it is not really in a position to prevent Nicaragua from acting. Meanwhile, Nicaraguan parliamentarians have vowed to travel to Isla Calero on November 10, to “reaffirm the defense of national territory.”

Where does Google Maps figure in all this? Opportunistically, it turns out. As long ago as October 22, 2010, Edén Pastora, the nationally famous Sandinista ex-revolutionary and now Nicaragua’s director of dredging on the Río San Juan, was arguing patriotically (translation) that the region is a no man’s land because the San Juan has changed course since the 19th century, when the Cleveland Award determined the border. By November 2, 2010, he had discovered that Google Maps’s border gives Nicaragua the top part of Isla Calero, and subsequently used this to justify the troop encampment on the island (translation). This prompted Costa Rica’s foreign ministry to contact Google, which in turn scrambled to check with the source of its data (the US State Department). Google has now said that the current Google Maps border for the area is wrong and that it will be updated as soon as possible.

Google’s current incorrect border

Given all this information, we can conclude that the narrative currently dominating the internet is wrong: Nicaragua did not mistakenly enter Costa Rican territory because it relied on Google Maps. Ortega’s justification for Nicaragua’s actions appeal to documents from the 19th century; Pastora’s mention of Google Maps is just a taunt.

A couple of loose threads remain. First, Bing Maps doesn’t come off nearly as well as Search Engine Land’s post would have you believe. A cursory glance shows that Bing’s border does not accurately follow the course of Río San Juan. For a good 10km stretch, Bing actually gives Nicaragua both banks of the river, but at the same time grants several coastal islands to Costa Rica. This is because the dataset is not detailed enough to withstand a close-up.

The US State Department’s admittedly faulty border, as depicted in Google Maps, is more of a puzzle. I first thought it might indeed have been an old dataset from the 1850s or 1880s, showing the course of the Río San Juan back then (as Pastora would have us believe), but I now think the dataset has to be modern but corrupted. That’s because Google’s border shows the distinct S bend in the river’s final few kilometers — an S bend which did not exist when E.P. Alexander drew his survey maps in 1897.

Finally, a Costa Rican TV program on the issue (part 1, part 2) shows Nicaragua’s new claim line, but this line matches neither Google Maps’s border nor the border as surveyed by Alexander.

Screen grab from TV show showing where Nicaragua purports Alexander mapped the course of the Río San Juan. The screencap also shows the position of the dredger (bottom). Below, how Alexander actually drew the course of the river (via Google Lat-Long Blog).

Update 17:28 UTC: Below is a better version of the new Nicaraguan claim line: an infographic from Nicaragua’s La Prensa. Note the clear appeal to E.P. Alexander’s survey map, but this appears to be contradicted by Alexander’s actual maps, reproduced above. h/t @EscalaNatural

Current incorrect border in Google Earth, showing the S-shaped river course.

What Nicaragua has yet to produce is an antique map showing the course of the Río San Juan in the 1800s along the route it now claims as the new border. Even if it does, convincing the ICJ of this claim line’s legitimacy will be a tall order, considering how both countries have for well over a century mapped their mutual border according to the shifting banks of the Río San Juan. Nicaragua’s plan to artificially change the course of the river — and thus the border — by dredging and clearing gets points for originality. I just don’t think it will fly with anyone who is not already a Nicaraguan nationalist.

• Bing Changes to Bird’s eye and 3D Maps – Bing Maps Blog – Site Blogs – Bing Community
  As expected, it is the end of the road for Microsoft Virtual Earth aka Bing Maps 3D, the 3D web-based competitor to Google Earth. MSFT will focus on enhanced oblique "bird's eye" imagery.