resampling, blurring, duffing...just a few terms used in connection with hiding /masking/censoring information from satellite and aerial imagery. The end product (apart from frustration), is data which has selective areas at an abysmally low resolution, hazy patches or worst still zero-fill. If you have (without checking the preview image) ordered data over a city that houses a number of 'important' and 'strategic' locations, be prepared to admire an image which reminds you of a badly made chess board - the result of zero-fill. A few years ago, I procured a high-resolution image covering the entire Mumbai city and was surprised to see two rectangular areas with zero-fill. In my knowledge, these two locations had nothing of importance and felt challenged to figure out what was being masked. Having lived all my life in this city, it hurt my 'geo-ego' and I did find out what was 'protected'. The entire idealogy of masking resulted in 'painting a bulls eye on the roof' or could also mean a 'placemark for a terrorist'.

The recent bill (AB 255) proposed by a South California assemblyman, if passed, will make it state law for online mapping services to blur images of designated "sensitive" locations, whether the pictures were taken at street level, from the air, or by satellites. We urgently need to address the 'issue' of what level of detail can be considered to "pose a serious security risk"? - or will it just mean that the 'highest resolution' data available at that instant will always be considered '...a security risk...' , just the way 5 m resolution data was considered a decade ago ?

Incidentally duffing actually means converting something to no-good