Google’s New Interface: The Earth

image

I’ve written before about how I think Google Earth, or something like it, will become a new form of interface — not just for looking for places and routes, but any kind of information. Some people call it the geo-web, but it’s actually bigger than that. Something like Google Earth will become an environment in its own right. I can imagine people using it to slice and dice company data, set up meetings, organize social networks.

Google is busy marching in this direction, and their newest offering is a great example of this: Google Book Search. This from Brandon Badger, product manager at Google Earth:

Did you ever wonder what Lewis and Clark said about your hometown as they passed through? What about if any other historical figures wrote about your part of the world? Earlier this year, we announced a first step toward geomapping the world’s literary information by starting to integrate information from Google Book Search into Google Maps. Today, the Google Book Search and Google Earth teams are excited to announce the next step: a new layer in Earth that allows you to explore locations through the lens of the world’s books.

Activating the layer peppers the earth with little yellow book icons — all over the place, like in this screenshot from Java:

image

Click on one of the books and the reference will pop up, including the title of the book, its cover, author, number of pages etc, as well as the actual context of the reference. Click on a link to the page

Is it perfect? No. It’s automated, so a lot of these references are just wrong. Click on a yellow book in Borneo and you find a reference in William Gilmore Simms’ “Life of Francis Marrion” to Sampit, which is the name of a town there, but it’s likely confused with the river of the same name in South Carolina.

Many of the books in Google’s database are scanned, so errors are likely to arise from imperfect OCR. Click on a book above the Java town of Kudus, and you get a reference to a History of France, and someone called “Ninon da f Kudus”, which in fact turns out to be the caption for an illustration of Le Grand Dauphin and Ninon de l’Enclos, a French C17 courtesan.

But who cares? By being able to click on the links you can quickly find out whether the references are accurate or not, and I’m guessing Google is going to gradually tidy this up, if not themselves then by allowing us users to correct such errors. (So far there doesn’t seem to be a way to do this.)

This is powerful stuff, and a glimpse of a new way of looking, storing and retrieving information. Plus it’s kind of fun.

Google LatLong: Google Book Search in Google Earth

Changing the Way We Drink

Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway has invented a device that lets him drinks his own urine:

Dean Kamen, famed inventor of the Segway vehicle, drank his own urine to the delight of a South Carolina audience. He was participating in a presentation of his latest gadget- a pee-purifying device that his company DEKA Research has developed.

He intends to solve the world’s water problem with this new invention– an energy efficient filtration system that can transform any water and convert it into drinkable H20. The device, still in prototype form, is ‘the size of a dorm-room fridge’.

Kamen owns one hundred and fifty patents and owns an island in the Long Island Sound. Bono is apparently interested in supporting this project and is being tapped for his high profile.

Actually sounds a great idea.

Pentagon Scraps Internet Voting Plan

Further to earlier postings about security fears for a new Internet voting system for overseas Americans, AP is quoting an anonymous official as saying the Pentagon has scrapped the plan. CNET attributes the same story to a spokesperson for the Pentagon.

AP quoted the official as saying Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made the decision to scrap the system because Pentagon officials were not certain they could “assure the legitimacy of votes that would be cast.” CNET quoted a spokesperson as saying pretty much the same thing:  “The action was taken in view of the inability to ensure the legitimacy of the votes cast.” 

About 6 million U.S. voters live overseas, most of them members of the military or their relatives. Pentagon officials had said they still planned to use the system, called SERVE, this fall and would test it during last Tuesday’s South Carolina primary. But the day before the voting the Pentagon called off the South Carolina test. CNET says the Defense Department is not completely dropping the idea: “Efforts will continue to look into all technical capabilities to cast votes over the Internet,” the spokesperson was quoted as saying.

“Internet Voting Isn’t Safe”

The e-voting saga continues.

Four computer scientists say in a new report that a federally funded online absentee voting system scheduled to debut in less than two weeks “has security vulnerabilities that could jeopardize voter privacy and allow votes to be altered”. They say the risks associated with Internet voting cannot be eliminated and urge that the system be shut down.

The report’s authors are computer scientists David Wagner, Avi Rubin and David Jefferson from the University of California, Berkeley; The Johns Hopkins University and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, respectively, and Barbara Simons, a computer scientist and leading technology policy consultant. They are members of the Security Peer Review Group, an advisory group formed by the Federal Voting Assistance Program to evaluate a system called SERVE, set up to allow overseas Americans to vote in their home districts. The first tryout is scheduled Feb. 3 for South Carolina’s presidential primary.

The four say that “Internet voting presents far too many opportunities for hackers or even terrorists to interfere with fair and accurate voting, potentially in ways impossible to detect. Such tampering could alter election results, particularly in close contests.” They “recommend shutting down the development of SERVE and not attempting anything like it in the future until both the Internet and the world’s home computer infrastructure have been fundamentally redesigned, or some other unforeseen security breakthroughs appear.”

The authors of the report state that there is no way to plug the security vulnerabilities inherent in the SERVE online voting design. “The flaws are unsolvable because they are fundamental to the architecture of the Internet,” says Wagner, assistant professor of computer science at UC Berkeley. “Using a voting system based upon the Internet poses a serious and unacceptable risk for election fraud. It is simply not secure enough for something as serious as the election of a government official.”

In short, the guys are saying the Internet is just not up to handling something like voting. But they also see the way the SERVE program carries the same flaws as the Diebold and other commercial electronic voting systems that have gotten such bad press in recent weeks (some of the four authors have been in the forefront of exposing those weaknesses). “The SERVE system has all of the problems that electronic touchscreen voting systems have: secret software, no protection against insider fraud and lack of voter verifiability,” says Jefferson. “But it also has a host of additional security vulnerabilities associated with the PC and the Internet, including denial-of-service attacks, automated vote buying and selling, spoofing attacks and virus attacks.”

After studying the prototype system the four researchers said it would be too easy for a hacker, located anywhere in the world, to disrupt an election or influence its outcome by employing any of several common types of attacks familiar to regular readers:

  • A denial-of-service attack, which would delay or prevent a voter from casting a ballot through the SERVE Web site.
  • A “Man in the Middle” or “spoofing” attack, in which a hacker would insert a phony Web page between the voter and the authentic server to prevent the vote from being counted or to alter the voter’s choice. What is particularly problematic, the authors say, is that victims of “spoofing” may never know that their votes were not counted.
  • Use of a virus or other malicious software on the voter’s computer to allow an outside party to monitor or modify a voter’s choices. The malicious software might then erase itself and never be detected.