Vic Govt limited Google's bushfire map

The Victorian Government's refusal to provide data for Google's bushfire map mashup limited its scope and highlighted glaring problems with Crown copyright provisions, the search giant's top Australian engineer said yesterday.

With over 1 million page views since Sunday, the Google Map overlay showing Victoria's bushfires has been invaluable for tracking the extent of the disaster.

Google Australia engineering director Alan Noble told the Broadband and Beyond conference in Melbourne yesterday that he became involved with the bushfire mapping effort after Google engineers woke in shock Sunday morning to read about the horrific fires unfolding east of Melbourne, which have claimed nearly 200 lives.

Noticing the Country Fire Authority (CFA) website was already struggling to keep up with demand for its online list of bushfire updates, Noble's team had the idea of overlaying the data onto Google Maps to produce a real-time map of the fires' locations and intensities. The CFA, which manages fires on private lands and has therefore remained at the front line of the devastating fires, consented — and within four hours, the new map was live.

The search giant's search for data to plot fires on public lands — which are managed by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) — produced an entirely different result. With no public feed of the fires' location and an explicit denial of permission to access its own internal data, the engineers were ultimately unable to plot that data on the map as well.

It's ironic that I can download detailed NASA satellite imagery [of Australia] more readily than I can get satellite imagery from the Australian government

Google's Alan Noble

The culprit, according to Noble: legally established Crown copyright provisions, which assign copyright over all government-produced information to the government and prevent its use without explicit consent. Crown copyright is well established in Commonwealth law, but runs contrary to data protection provisions in countries like the US, where data produced by government agencies is held to be in the public domain.

Noble said the engineers' experience this week was an example of why Commonwealth data protection provisions must be relaxed to promote open access to publicly relevant information. "It's ironic that I can download detailed NASA satellite imagery [of Australia] more readily than I can get satellite imagery from the Australian government," he told the conference.

The bushfire situation wasn't the first time Google has crossed swords with Crown copyright. The company had similar problems recently when it asked the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging for access to the data in the National Public Toilet Map, which it sought to offer as an overlay to Google Maps.

However, Google Loo was not to be: citing protection of the data under Crown copyright, the government refused to provide that information. Google's fight to open up government information sources follows on from earlier advice, in reviews like the Copyright Law Review Committee's 2005 inquiry, that government-produced data be made more freely available.

In a formal submission (PDF) to the Victorian Government last year, Google Australia argued that "there are considerable benefits that would flow to the Victorian Government and the wider Victorian community from the unfettered availability of publicly funded, non-confidential government information ... By making public sector information available to all organisations on the same terms, there would be an equal playing field for the creation of innovative products."

Google's Alan Noble (Credit: Google)

Many private enterprises have been similarly reluctant to provide information: the recently launched Google PowerMeter initiative, for example, is all about surfacing relevant usage information to drive smarter energy usage. "We've been very disappointed with the amount of information utilities generally provide to customers," Noble explained. "Where people can efficiently and easily monitor their power consumption, just having visibility into their usage is enough to cut power usage by as much as 15 per cent."

The need for open data has become even more pressing with the rise of geospatial mapping, Noble said. Google Maps has become an immensely popular way of representing geographically-linked data in everything from scientific endeavour to real estate. With the platform's application programming interfaces (APIs) open to all developers, Noble said the company's goal is to let any developer add mapping capabilities to represent information in new ways.

Fully 60 per cent of the hits to Google Maps, he revealed, come through the APIs — indicating that they were from third-party sites. "When you open up all this information," Noble said, "it fuels innovation in ways we can't predict. APIs allow developers to build new products from existing components very, very quickly." Sites like Google Maps Mania track interesting uses of Google Maps to display specific data sets.

Noble sees the widespread availability of APIs as one of two critical engines for growth in online applications. The other, gadgets, "are doing for applications what RSS is doing for content," he said, by allowing websites to integrate fully-featured capabilities from other sites and create "third-party mashups" that combine best-of-breed functionality in new ways.

"We're seeing billions and billions of page views every week," he explained. "No one company could achieve that kind of scale. And the thing that makes this possible is the openness and innovation that open APIs and open data sets enable."

Advertisement

Talkback 49 comments

    outraged Anonymous -- 12/02/09

    I too am outraged with crown copyright. This information needs to be freely available to the public for anyone to use for any purpose. At the moment use of government created data for innovative and useful purposes is stalled by recuring that every single prospective use be approved and secondly allowing discrimination as the government can freely choose by who and how their data gets used.

    On the up side the federal government is looking into this matter (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy).

    Its disgusting Anonymous -- 12/02/09

    How precious can a government agency get about providing access to PUBLIC information?

    Google is probably only one of a few service providers who could cope with the immense load events like the firestorm create.

    The policy makers, the senior managers and the communications advisors need to wake up and get into the 21st century. We're not talking about access to state secrets or personal information.

    Projects like the public toilet map are a convenience.

    Vital information about government services, local conditions, evacuation statuses etc in the middle of a crisis can save lives.

    In the long run will anyone be held accountable for this failing? Not likely. All we can do is keep demanding for access to OUR information. After all its OUR tax dollars that pay for it.

    Bushfires on Google Map Mike Hurburgh -- 12/02/09

    A bit of confusion in this article - CFA = Country Fire Authority, a State Government entity, not Commonwealth; Crown copyright is a State issue, not a Commonwealth one - copyright on Commonwealth Government data is under a different set of rules.

    One issue which has been of concern from almost day one is "who owns the data?". The funds spent acquiring data, creating databases, etc by government entities came from the taxpayer, and therefore the taxpayer should reap some return from those who would use such data to make a profit. You don't get to use government land to earn an income without some form of lease or licence; why is data any different?

    The other issue is liability. Who is responsible if someone uses the data for some use for which is was not intended and/or for which it is not suitable? Where does the buck stop if someone relies on live data, such as the location of a fire front, and makes life-threatening decisions based on that data.

    No wonder the DSE refused - they have enough to do as it is without worrying about how their data is being interpreted by others. They would be gathering information from a multitude of sources - how would it be possible to analyse, assess and translate this into digital form for publication? Some decisions/interpretations are made purely on local knowledge and experience.

    I detect a definite attitude of arrogance from Google - how dare they refuse to give us access to government data! Just because the USA government makes it free doesn't imply everyone else should follow. There is no irony in the fact that satellite data of Australia can be obtained from NASA for free, just a different business model - NASA don't see a need to get a return from their product.

    Google derive their income from the advertising they display on their web-pages. They need to continue to enhance their offerings to sell the advertising. But the fact that the rest of the world doesn't want to, or can't, conform to their business model does not justify the arrogance demonstrated in this article.

    Those who propose these concepts ought to spend a bit more time in the real world.

    Liability a sticky issue. Or is it? David Braue -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123067)

    The CFA slipup was the result of a brain slip, apologies for that. CFA is indeed the Country Fire Authority.

    Your point about liability is interesting. There is always a risk of people misinterpreting the data but one could argue that the onus for use of freely available data lies with the organisation using it. But it would of course not work that way -- someone could well end up making the wrong decisions and blaming the information.

    Which begs the question: is wrong information, or correct information used the wrong way, better or worse than no information at all? Could someone sue the DSE for not providing bushfire information, which caused them to not be aware of dangerous bushfires in their area, which caused them to delay their preparations or flee too late? Can there be guilt by omission?

    And what of the toilets example? Is there a logical case to be made for withholding free and ready access to information about the location of public toilets?

    And while it's easy to question Google's motives for wanting more and more advertising -- and doing it by overlaying information about everything imaginable on Google Maps -- one could also argue that the government's duty is to collect information to improve the quality of life of its citizens, and that no benefit is gained by withholding that data as long as it doesn't compromise national security or have other effects.

    No clear answers of course but very good questions. Certainly an issue worth revisiting to weigh risks vs benefits to the public good.

    This is not about advertising Anonymous -- 16/02/09 (in reply to #320123067)

    This is clearly not about advertisements. Google's web page of the bushfires doesn't even have any! (http://www.google.com.au/landing/victorianbushfires/) It's about creating awareness of this terrible national tragedy, and companies that get involved should be praised for doing so.

    re: Anonymous -- 14/03/09 (in reply to #320123067)

    its not just Google they have stopped here. Its the little guy as well.

    Bushfires on Google Map Mike Hurburgh -- 12/02/09

    An update and another opinion on my previous comment -

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,606669,00.html

    Google Bushfire Maps Anonymous -- 13/02/09

    This is insane. My family has spent the week desperate for news of a property in Buxton. As we border DSE territory the fire maps have been showing all clear when we know from people up there that the situation is anything but. The Maroondah Hwy is still closed from Healesville to Taggerty but there are no fires displaying after Healesville. This isn't just ridiculous. It's dangerous.

    Google Bushfire Maps Mike Hurburgh -- 13/02/09 (in reply to #320123142)

    The above comment confirms two of my points - Google has been irresponsible in showing 'all clear', when in fact they should have been showing 'no data'; and individuals using the data for purposes for which it was not intended (ie not intended to be used for life-threatening situations, merely an overview of the total situation).

    If I were you I'd be contacting the CFA and DSE direct and not relying on thirdhand information.

    Check out this website for further comment -
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,606669,00.html

    Bushfires on Google Map Mike Hurburgh -- 13/02/09 (in reply to #320123142)

    This comment confirms two of the points I made before. Firstly, Google should not be showing 'all clear' in areas where data is not available - it should be shown as 'no data'.

    Secondly, this is an obvious case of the data being used for a purpose for which it was not intended - the Google map should only be regarded as an overview, not a precise depiction of the situation.

    I would be contacting the CFA and DSE direct, rather than relying on the third hand information supplied by Google.

    Spatial data still requires all the checks and quality control used on any other data set, especially for critical scenarios.

    For further comment check out this article -

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,606669,00.html

    Ring the phone number idiot! Anonymous -- 13/02/09 (in reply to #320123142)

    There's plenty of information available from the phone numbers provided by EVERY media outlet. You can ring these every minute if required and get more accurate info than those grubby Americans will ever get their hands on

    When does a 'public toilet' become 'not public'? Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 13/02/09

    I think the 'public toilet' info is the ultimate example of the states working vigorously against the public good.

    If the toilets are "public" then presumably their location MUST be "public knowledge". And who can suppress the on-transmittal of information which is already in the public domain?

    At what point does the public toilet become non-public on the basis that the state does not want its location known?

    Google should simply have 'lifted' the information concerning the location of each such toilet and added it to Google Maps, in the same way as Telstra etc take the location of fixed speed cameras (state-controlled devices) and add them to their GPS maps etc. Any public servant that was contemplating a legal claim against any party showing the location of a public toilet on any map, (for the purpose of the public making use of the convenience) would need counselling.

    And it goes further. NSW Maritime have for a decade or so put up 'intentionally knobbled' (unusably coarse) maps of NSW ports and waterways on its website, to encourage you to purchase the plastic-covered versions they sell. But what about cruising yachts off the coast wondering what the lights signals are and where the reefs/buoys/jetties are, to enter an unplanned port during a storm? Ought they order it on-line and await AusPost's failed delivery?

    Safety organisations should work out if they are there for the public safety, or are private publishing houses with a profit motive... 'cause usually these goals collide. ALL safety information should be available FREE online, and if you want the printed/bound/plasticised versions, you can pay.

    The same logic applies to Australian Standards, whereby the compliance would be FAR higher if all standards were available free on-line, rather than being sold for outrageous prices.

    Bushfires on Google Map Anonymous -- 13/02/09 (in reply to #320123149)

    "One issue which has been of concern from almost day one is "who owns the data?". The funds spent acquiring data, creating databases, etc by government entities came from the taxpayer, and therefore the taxpayer should reap some return from those who would use such data to make a profit. You don't get to use government land to earn an income without some form of lease or licence; why is data any different?

    Governments (and their citizens) who are reluctant to learn and implement progressive policies and practices from other older industrialized countries are doomed to fall further behind each year.

    "Data" is the life-blood of all modern societies. The free availability of accurate, regularly-updated data is absolutely essential to the efficient running of all modern societies. Many countries are smart enough to realize this, and make their massive data-bases freely available (via the web) to all their citizens. Sadly in the year of Darwin's 200th anniversary, we still haven't reached that stage of evolution. However "the government" in 1967, did manage to discover that aborigines were in fact human beings, just like us, and promptly gave them the right to vote.

    Why is government land any different to data. Quite simply, the government did not use our taxes to buy, collect or "manufacture" government land. In 1788 thanks to the decree of Terria Nullius, the "government" of Australia automatically gave itself ownership of ALL the land, and has since then, made billions of $$$'s selling or leasing this land to its citizens. How else could we have designed, funded, and produced the worlds six best submarines, the world famous Collins Class.

    Google, myself, and millions of other inquisitive Ozzies are not complaining about having to pay a fee to access government data, we are complaining about the fact that the "Government" REFUSES all access to the data, claiming "Government Copyright" or some other feeble excuse.

    e.g. The GAF Nomad aircraft was one of our "great" contributions to aircraft design in the 20th century. Numerous pilots, passengers and members of the armed services died unnecessarily as a result of shortcomings in its design and certification. If you were unfortunate enough to have had a close friend or relative die in the Nomad, just try getting any Government Department in our country to give you full access to all the information they have on the Nomad and its design and performance shortcomings.

    In any progressive democratic society the Government is elected to serve the long term aspirations of the majority of its citizens, we are not here to serve the arbitrary political whims of the (short-term) government of the day.

    Frustrated Anonymous -- 13/02/09

    Another fine example of Google's cavalier attitude to spatial data quality and a clear lack of understanding of spatial data representation. Plotting fires on map as point features and allowing users to view those features at a large scale (street-level) is careless and is a meaningless representation. They neglect to clearly inform users that it is not a complete representation and nor is it fit for those at risk from the fires to make decisions.

    Does Google also expect the Government to hire and pay additional employees to package the data in such a way that it can be distributed to outside organisation, or do they simply expect to get free feed. Taxpayers are paying expects to collect the data in order to facilitate informed decision; not to provide a discount service.

    Utility companies are of course going to be sensitive with energy usage data. It is in their interests for energy consumption to be as high as possible under current pricing/retail schemes!

    I'll concede the toilet data is a curious case, but it is more likely that government was stumped on how to conduct the commercial aspects.

    stumped by commercial apsects of toilet Mick Mason -- 13/02/09 (in reply to #320123150)

    Anonymous is right about the commercial constriants - the private sector company engaged by the public sector agency to produce the toilet location data set has the IP and has refused to allow it to be further distributed.

    now tell me how the naughty ole government is to blame

    What govt in right mind lets contractor retain IP Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 18/02/09 (in reply to #320123188)

    Mick asked if we should still blame the government, if the contractor paid to collect the toilet data retained the intellectual property, and thus now frustrates its client in allowing wider disemmination of the information about the location of public toilets in Australia.

    Well, Mick the answer is 'Yes' - what govt/dept in its right mind would award a contract to collect data and then allow the private contractor to 'own' the resultant data? Unfortunately, the excuse you have offered to exonerate the public sector is actually proof of even greater public sector stupidity!

    But I say 'go back to basics' - if it IS a public toilet, then NO-ONE owns the data concerning its existence or location. People should be free to add such data elements to their own maps, as if they had discovered the information afresh. Throughout history, virtually all maps have been built upon prior maps... so no-one owns the underlying Ancient Greek map of the then-known world, upon which all subsequent maps were built.

    CFA Renai LeMay -- 13/02/09

    FYI I have replaced "Commonwealth Fire Authority" with "Country Fire Authority" in this story.

    Cheers,

    Renai LeMay
    News Editor
    ZDNet.com.au

    Maps not fit for purpose Anonymous -- 13/02/09

    Unlike Google, the DSE clearly state the time they were last updated and advise "Do not rely on these maps to make decisions about personal safety." They also don't pretend to be able to map the fires 'in real time'. The DSE and CFA have people who can interpret the maps along with other information such as wind direction, the actual infrastrucure or material on the ground at risk and fire fighting experience to make informed decisions.

    Storm in a tea cup Mel Sommersberg -- 13/02/09

    What maks Google so special? What's wrong with viewing the data on the CFA website in tex form? Google makes money out of the services they provide either directly or indirectly so it would be fair to assume that they should pay for any data they want to acquire from our governments.

    It's about time that all the Google nutters in the joint stopped treating Google like a false idol. Google is a company. If they want to provide products and services then they should buy them, not expect to get them for nothing whilst making billions in profits.

    This has nothing to do with people's safety at all. If it did then you'd be able to sue Google if a loved-one relied on their map and then got burnt in a fire. Think about it and come back to reality people.

    It's not about Google, but putting info out Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 13/02/09 (in reply to #320123178)

    The issue is not about Google, but rather about putting out info, including 'where' info, on a timely basis, esp during an emergency.
    Most people will not know what govt dept's web site to go to for each such emergency, and I'd say there is about a 0.0001 chance it will be 'live' or even moderately current...
    I was away all weekend, then watched the Channel 7 Sunrise coverage from 8am till 11am Monday, shocked at the scenes on national TV, waiting for the location graphic. At no time in those three hours did Channel 7 News delineate where the emergency was, how widespread it was, or what adjoining areas were at risk, or such people ought to do.
    What with more and more people being able to see web-sourced image data on their phones, I think the relevant authority ought make sure that all known data is conveyed to the public, through all possible channels... and times of emergency are not the time to seek to negotiate a royalty basis, nor to exclude data on the basis of copyright (unless personal data would be disclosed).
    From what I saw, none of the free-to-air networks had any map graphics, presumably because they did not know the areas to show. This confirms poor information dissemination by CFA. All those people in neighbouring towns should have been able to see the info, and all the relatives in Melbourne and interstate would not have been phoning constantly seeking to discover if loved one's areas were at risk.
    Yes, let's have sirens, and geographically-ranged SMS emergency alerts, but let's also see that authorities do a better job in getting out the information.

    Not so Graeme. Mel Sommersberg -- 14/02/09 (in reply to #320123187)

    "Most people will not know what govt dept's web site to go to for each such emergency, and I'd say there is about a 0.0001 chance it will be 'live' or even moderately current..."

    Give people credit for a bit more commonsense Graeme. I would think most people know where their home state's website is.

    "This confirms poor information dissemination by [the] CFA."

    Also, given that information displayed on either a government website or obtainable by Google (or other companies) would be coming from the same source then it would be prudent to assume that all displayed information everywhere would be the same.

    Contrary to your beliefs, this issue is all about Google wanting to be the centre of attention. Their approach is childish and money-driven and I reiterate that their approach has nothing to do with safety.

    In conclusion, all the state fire brigades' websites (metropolitan and rural) have plenty of information on where fires are located, how many appliances and crew are shown attending and also whether the fire is under control or not. I, for one, am inclined to use these websites before trusting any third party.

    Why should the info be limited one web site? S Myers -- 16/02/09 (in reply to #320123223)

    Like many people, I went to the the DSE web site last week only to be greeted with a caution about the site being under load and to refrain from using it! The idea that information should only be limited to one web site, and then to be told to stay away is appalling. Why should such important information be limited one web site?

    In Emergencies People Rely on Normal Media Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 18/02/09 (in reply to #320123223)

    Mel has claimed that people will know which state-based dept's web-site to go to for information in an emergency. I say that is wrong, and that the vast majority will expect to get the necessary information from normal radio and TV channels. if there was a tsunami approaching the east coast of Australia, I would not know which web-site to look at. If there was an earthquake and there were powerlines down everywhere, I would not know if a road authority or various semi-private electricity corporations' sites should be visited to ascertain where the danger was.

    Mel and others may get their weather info direct from www.bom.gov.au, but the vast majority of Australians get their weather reports from TV, radio and newspapers... so what is wrong with that multiple-channel information distribution model?

    Mel also suggested that I was drawing the wrong conclusion about CFA information disemmination when I noted that none of the commercial TV stations had location graphics available. They all showed footage of walls of 100ft-high flames, but gave no geographic information about the areas currently under threat. For NSW viewers at least, reasonable location maps started appearing with the excellent 'after-the-fact' ABC TV's 'Four Corners' program on Monday night. But that was a retrospective on the disaster. I say again that the fact that the major media outlets could not or did not display graphical information about the areas affected and under threat WAS proof that the CFA (at head office level) was NOT doing a good job of information dissemination. It is undoubtedly the case that the situation was constantly changing, and updates from the field were dribbling in, but if part of your responsibility is to get people out of harm's way (as well as fighting fires) then you ought keep releasing such information as you have, even if it comes with a caveat that the information is constantly changing. I don't find the argument that the information was constantly changing a satisfactory defence against providing such information as you have, on the grounds that such imprecise information may well save lives. Further, if the CFA already had the information mapped onto an any form of graphic, then such media-ready formats should also be disclosed for the purpose of public safety. And if all they had was a wall-map with pins or areas marked, then someone in CFA ought to have been photographing that wall-map and making it available to the TV networks, so it could be splashed on screens throughout areas not yet affected, but potentially affected. Issuing media releases naming towns etc is just too 'coarse' a level of detail, as all the property owners near those towns remain uncertain if they might/will be affected, but good map graphics are invaluable in such assessments. Of course, if the CFA does not want Google to do the job, out of CFA's budget they should have had one person in the main control room sitting at a PC and editing the information onto a map image, with wind directions or fire progress directions shown, and released that to the major media outlets as frequently as possible. That way would overcome the issues of photographing a wall-map, yet allow the location graphic image(s) the CFA wanted to be splashed over the TV to show the 'high risk' etc areas they thought should be identified. Of course they probably told the police what areas to drive around and warn residents, but that is a slow process, and nothing beats getting the information direct to the end-consumer (resident) so the maximum amount of warning can be provided. And geographically-ranged SMS alerts will bring the issue to people's attention, but a good map graphic of which way to head to avoid the problem is invaluable. I think this (along with more controlled burns in state-owned land) will be the big lessons from this disaster.

    FULL CIRCLE - now Google is supplying data for fire assessment Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 18/02/09 (in reply to #320123529)

    Well, for all those critical of Google wanting up-to-date information feeds in times of disaster... the worm has turned.
    On today's (18feb09) SMH front page is a major photo gallery showing the damage of the Victorian fires. The link is http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2009/national/bushfire-before-after/index.html but SMH links often don't work too long after publication date.
    Anyway, to add a curious twist to this debate, the media is using GoogleEarth images of how particular areas like holiday resorts around Marysville and rural areas affected by the fires USED to look before the fire, and then comparing those with similar post-fire helicopter photos.
    So now, fire assessment of what existed before the fire (how many trees how close, what decking etc) will be supplied by Google, and compared to post-fire images taken by CFA, Police and media.
    It almost looks like an argument in favour of generally-available mapping services, of the type Google provide.

    Graeme, you show signs of a poor debater Mel Sommersberg -- 05/03/09 (in reply to #320123529)

    Please don't take words out of my mouth to enhance your own argument Graeme. I never made any comment containing the claims you made about accessing government websites.

    All I said was that people are intelligent enough to know how to visit the website of their home state. When uttering those words I didn't make any comment relating to emergencies.

    With all this said, I wouldn't bother about visiting websites in an emergency and the LAST place I would visit is Google. I would pack my bags and leave my area if a bushfire was heading my way. Having lived through the Sydney firestorms of 1994 I think I know what I am talking about.

    @Graeme you are a poor debater Jason -- 05/03/09 (in reply to #320124864)

    Mel, as you now hide from me rather than debate, following your previous abysmal debating performances and subsequent trouncing, your hypocrisy relating to another's so called lack of debating skills is laughable.

    - Mel Sommersberg -- 06/03/09 (in reply to #320124908)

    Jason, I've never lost a debate with you and I fail to see how you could arrive at such a stupid notion. You are never on-topic for a start, so there's been very little to discuss with you.

    When you have something relevant to talk about then I will happily take part. Until then I will assume that you are just continuing your perpetual dick-measuring exercise.

    Mel. A debater of mass proportions. A mass debater, if you will. Jason -- 06/03/09 (in reply to #320124966)

    Mel you have never lost a debate to anyone according to you. Obviously, you are either blind, stupid or full of ***t. My guess is all 3.

    I have seen you wince many times and done it even more to you myself. Hmmm curious. Perhaps you need to tone down the modesty a bit there super guy, lol.

    You said to me when I used to post anonymously, that if I gave my name, you would (and I quote) "answer any question your heart desires". MORE LIES obviously, because since I did so, you have been avoiding me, having not responded to my questions on 3 or 4 occasions and responding now just to tell me you have never lost a debate (in your own little feeble mind), roflmfao.

    You are obviously too scared to debate now that your get out of gaol free card of "I won't answer or correspond further until you supply your name" has been pulled from under you.

    Also, as I said to Sydney **** that other ***king moron who childishly goes from blog to blog anonymously, laughably saying stupid ***t about me, imitation is the best form of flattery and you mention dick measuring? This is one of my expressions so I am flattered, as I am constantly when the other moron steals my gems too.

    If only you actually had a dick and especially a decent pair of balls to go with it, we'd be right, Mel.

    So since you are too full of yourself and also too stupid to realise, if you would like me to spell out how I have out debated you, please just ask and "I will answer as your heart desires". rofl.

    Where's Wally? I mean where's Mel. Yoo hoo Mel.... Jason -- 08/03/09 (in reply to #320124991)

    Yoo hoo Mel Sommersberg/Lord Watchdog, where for art thou?

    Your continued silence, running and hiding is most telling!

    Let me reiterate what I said almost 2 days ago (also refer above) -

    "So since you are too full of yourself and also too stupid to realise, if you would like me to spell out how I have out debated you, please just ask and "I will answer as your heart desires". rofl.

    Lord (pfft)

    Poor little Google Tony Healy -- 13/02/09

    Boo hoo, poor little Google. The DSE didn't jump when Google rang them up. As others have pointed out, there is a lot more to the presentation of emergency services data than putting it on a pretty little Google map.

    Kudos to DSE for telling Google to wait their turn, and CFA might want to re-think their response.

    Residents could die if Google's representations became stale or were presented with unwarranted precision due to some graphic designer's decision. I would bet Google's lawyers have ensured liability would lay with taxpayers, not the big G.

    google motivation Mick Mason -- 13/02/09

    I'd be a little more inclined to sympathise if Google were honest about their motivation. All Google wants is sensational content to drive traffic, and thus revenue across their site.

    They have no concern with accuracy, liability or public good. The sanctimonious tripe coming from the Google mouthpiece was arrant hypocrisy

    Google Who? Anonymous -- 13/02/09

    Google aren't the official source of ANY data, so why would anyone in their right mind get out of date information from Google? Official sources are OFFICIAL sources, not a bunch of people with useless university education from the USA thinking they OWN the world.

    Everyone hates the USA enough without Google adding to the debate!

    Who do they think they are? Google think they own all the world's data do they? Maybe we should legislate AGAINST Google in Australia so they don't violate Copyright any more than the billions of times they already do each week.

    Free lunch is good. Anonymous -- 14/02/09

    Google are providing another representation of exactly the same data as provided on the CFA site, and wanted to do the DSE site, but in a graphical format.
    Go on, have a look at those sites and then try and determine where the fires are. Try it, its not easy. And on the weekend there were hundreds of unsorted items to search. Less easy.
    Would you like DSE and CFA to PAY other organisations to provide more server power or would you like Google to provide it for free? Free as in, sure you'll see the google branding, but who gives a rats about that.
    They are not necessarily evil because they are american.

    No such thing as a free lunch Mel Sommersberg -- 14/02/09 (in reply to #320123222)

    This is the whole point Anonymous. Google's offering is not free. It is paid for by advertisers. If Google is earning money for providing a service then they should be paying the content owner for providing the content.

    Further to that, Google owns absolutely no content at all. Google is a greedy American corporate entity who makes billions out of suckers like you and suckers who advertise through them for displaying content drawn to them by other people/companies.

    Whilst there is certainly no law against Google's operations I think it is a bit much allowing them to make money from intellectual property owned by the Crown and this is by Google's own admission so you can hardly sit here and argue that Google's intentions are otherwise.

    "Intellectual property owned by the Crown" Anonymous -- 26/02/09 (in reply to #320123225)

    Google or not, the main issue here is ready availability of information to the people that need it -- and paid for it. You refer to "intellectual property owned by the Crown" (that would be the English Crown by the way) but why is that IP not owned by the people of Australia and made available to all who want to use it (even Google) to benefit the people of Australia? After all, those same people of Australia provided the funding for it to be collected -- and not just so it can be carefully collected, controlled and kept from them because of some blanket copyright restriction.

    Many question Google's motives (although it's worth noting that Google Maps was developed in Australia by Australians). However, it is providing more aggregate spatial data, to more people, for free, than any other company on earth. Why is this a bad thing? Any other company can do this too but few have the scale and reach to pull it off.

    Some here have questioned the risks in reading too much into the information, especially in the case of bushfires where life and death decisions may be made based on that information. But surely people on the whole can be intelligent consumers of data that's presented with appropriate caveats and aggregated in meaningful ways through an accessible and familiar interface.

    Isn't this better than having no data at all?

    Crown Mel Sommersberg -- 05/03/09 (in reply to #320124262)

    "Crown" property refers to property owned by either the Commonwealth or State Governments in Australia. This isn't a debate about a republic so grow up.

    calm down, people Anonymous -- 14/02/09

    i think a lot of people are letting anti-google views get in the way of the issue. google is just asking for data to be made available, saying nothing about whether they'd pay fees for it (they pay for satellite imagery for example). the government already makes a lot of data available to third parties for mashups - electoral boundaries, polling booths, reef locations, land use, telecommunications maps etc etc. this is just about making it available in a form suitable to today's technologies so that web developers - not just Google but others (think of all the people who make maps mashups) can make it available in innovative ways (the vic governmeny pages were crashing so clearly demand for the info exceeded supply)

    the government could say "This information/feed has to be used in Y way with Z qualifications, upon the payment of X fee". that's a simple step.

    of course google is a company with a profit motive but in this instance they're not running ads on this map (it's not even hosted on google maps) so i will reserve judgment on their motivation - they did update google earth with imagery about hurricane katrina and cyclone nargis too with no ads. and as i said, it's not about google - it's about making access to information available so that this important info can get out via google, developers, twitter, the media, whomever.

    Why Google needs to put a sock in it Tony Healy -- 16/02/09

    Google's Alan Noble chose to cite DSE rejection in support of his company's relentless quest for greater access to free material for its advertising. (See paras 1 and 6.)

    He chose to conflate that rejection with crown copyright, but that's highly misleading. There are numerous safety, technical and legal reasons DSE might reject Google, especially since DSE at the time was gearing up for one of the worst disasters in Australia's history.

    I think govt data should be free for use Indulis Bernsteins -- 16/02/09

    There is no reason for data which has been gathered using our money to not be available freely for whatever use.

    The current situation of "Crown copyright" of so-called "intellectual property" creates a situation where the government has a vested interest to stop new an innovative uses of the data, as it may reduce the market for their own spatial products.

    In essence, the copyright law is driving government to stifle industry.

    The only solution seems to be to give it away. That eliminates the tendency of bureaucracy to protect itself by hobbling its competition.

    Government should not be in the business of producing spatial products, *unless* it is of value to the citizens and it is not being produced by private industry.

    And the result in this case proves it. I am sure that anyone in the bushfires would have been glad of SOME information rather than none.

    Free at whim of government funding Patanjali -- 17/02/09 (in reply to #320123344)

    On the face of it, it seems reasonable to make government-collected data free.

    But given the limited funds available for government projects, the future availability of that data may be under threat from budget cuts at some time. If that data is tied to, or at least subsidised by, itsnown revenue stream, it may be less likely to be affected.

    Poor article Anonymous -- 16/02/09

    This is a poorly researched article - DSE are working with another company regarding spatial information - perhaps Google just have sour grapes??

    The author should have dug a little deeper...

    Government spin deflects from real issues Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 18/02/09

    As noted in other posts, I don't think the disemmination of timely public safety information is what any public servant ought stop... by any channel available.

    However, I think there is some merit in the arguments put forward by others on blogs that the Victorian Government made a HUGE issue of arsonists. Why? Were they irresponsibly trying to get a lynch mob together? I think it was to DIVERT ATTENTION away from the mistakes the government and its agencies had made, and the responsibility they ought shoulder.

    As the 'Four Corners' program of 16-17feb09 noted, it is an issue of fuel loads, atmospheric conditions and sources of ignition. The only one we can really control is fuel load. We will continue to have hot summers and lightning strikes etc. Concentration on some human-initiated sources of ignition seeks to divert a ttention away from the callous lack of commitment to keeping Asset Protection Zones (APZs) on either sides of roads, powerlines, residential areas etc. Moreover, any analysis of the 'big' fires in SE Australia show that it is National Parks and state reserves where they are unstoppable. The relevant authorities need to be held accountable, and spin is not the answer.... but by all means prosecute any arsonists.

    Web access to fire info Kate Arnold -- 18/02/09

    We live very close to Bunyip State Park and watched both the DSE and CFA sites very closely, particularly on 7/2. There have been so many fires on that day and since that it became impossible to make sure I viewed all the data. I subscribed to the RSS feed and then set some rules in mail app to extract data specific to us ie by region and then specific localities (hopefully I spelled them correctly and included all applicable ones). I couldn't imagine explaining to my mum and dad how to do the same, then my low tech sister rang to report a fire not far from us which I had missed??? "I'm just looking at the Google map of Victorian fires". Graphical info is far quicker and clearer to interpret. If DSE and CFA can provide this great. Google is now providing this, also great! Oh and if I am to ring for info re my area what time cycle would be safe and appropriate?? 1 hour? 30 mins? 10 mins?

    JUST DO IT Anonymous -- 18/02/09

    you oldies should just chill a bit. It's all this freakin political crap that has complicated life beyond reason. BLAH BLAH BLAH. JUST DO IT (no commercial reference intended, this comment is not sponsored)

    Sour Grapes Vendor Skeptic -- 25/02/09

    Boo hoo! So Google missed out on a marketing opportunity for selling 'GIS in the cloud'. Big whoop! I don't need this information on a google map. The CFA need GIS and they have it. The CFA also provide a fire map on their website for lookyloos like us. Their map incidentally has a better representation of fire fronts than google can present. The National PublicToilet map uses Sensis (also not Google). The government shares the data it creates all the time, but just not with any company who asks for it just to make money and big note themselves. Google have sour grapes that in both instances, the maps and data were provided to the public, but not via Google Maps. Call a waaaaambulance.

    Here's the info Google says wasn't provided. Anonymous -- 25/02/09

    By the Way:

    http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/incidents/incident_updates.htm#1478092906708

    and

    http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/

    Well, the CFA site is FAR LESS useful than a spatial image Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 27/02/09 (in reply to #320124064)

    Well, I've now looked in detail at the long text stream on the provided CFA website and have to say "a picture really is worth a thousand words". Rather than tens of separate alerts, I'd far rather see that data in a spatial/map representation. And it seems the fire chiefs prefer that ALSO, in that they had the graphical representation, including estimations of direction and likely coverage, but THAT information was never shared. Now we can argue that it was only a computer projection (same as the daily weather forecast is only a projection) but if the info exists and would help in public safety, then there is a duty of care to release it by all available channels.

    Pretty sure google doesn't do this either Anonymous -- 25/02/09

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/anatomy-of-a-bushfire/2009/02/23/1235237560187.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Blogs

  • Darren Greenwood Telecom NZ savings damage prospects
    If Telecom NZ wants to have any of the NZ$1.5 billion the government intends to spend on its new broadband network, it had better think long and hard before offshoring 1500 jobs.
  • Array iiNet: The whys and what nows
    Last week the Federal Court ruled that internet service providers are not responsible for copyright violation by their customers. This is an important decision not just for iiNet, which spent around $4 million defending the case, but for all ISPs in Australia and, indeed, globally.
  • Array Govt, hurry up with releasing data
    A programmer scraped data from the My School website to make some really cool heat maps showing regions of smart schools — no thanks to the government, which didn't supply the data in any useful kind of format.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured