Google Earth & Satellite map censorship

How do intelligence agencies actually get tech companies to censor things like Google Earth?

Specifically I'm wondering how does Five Eyes/CIA or whoever hide extrajudicial activities and black projects without letting the person doing the censorship know what it is they're hiding. I know that in 1998 a U.S. law was passed that meant high-res images of the entirety of Israel were forbidden, synthetic aperture radar not allowed. That's smart because it doesn't point to a specific area so you can deduce what they're hiding which in this case is Jericho ICBMs.

Hypothetical example: Google Earth's Landsat takes a high res snap in the hours following MH370 disappearing. It shows a bunch auxillary US Navy ships tugging a 777 fuselage 100nm north of Diego Garcia and 8 Super Hornets coming in to land at the airfield and you can clearly see they have live sidewinders and sparrows as opposed to captive training rounds and some pylons have missing, expended 'foxes'. The next pass shows CIA agents winching the plane into a sandpit and setting off thermite and a bunch of telltale signs of what happened.

How the fuck does the spook go uh "Nothing serious, but we need to look through some imagery you took on the day the plane went missing and put some fake clouds and stuff over it don't think too hard pls" to the Google employee?

Does ECHELON/Five Eyes or whoever just get the sat data before Google sees it and scrub anything super specific?

Attached: 97539075307350.png (700x525, 511K)

>That's smart because it doesn't point to a specific area so you can deduce what they're hiding which in this case is Jericho ICBMs

Uhh, oxymoronical statement about deduction. They have all sorts of shit they have to hide for military reasons like Patriot batteries, nuclear reactor activities. I mean it doesn't narrow down the area by putting black patches over it.

The same way private companies like boeing build stealth fighters and spy satellites, the company employs people with security clearances who can be trusted with shit.

This, there are people at Google or whatever satellite company that redact specific area's

But spy contractors aren't amoral, look at Snowden.

It would have to be a very small black ops group of blackmailed individuals that does the scrubbing. Not security clearances, black op analysts who cover up illegal activities.

I'm not saying shooting down MH370 was amoral, it was the right thing to do considering it was trying to kamikaze a massive row of bombers worth half a trillion at least in a parking area adjacent to a nuclear munitions storage area. But sending people on a wild goose chase and faking INMARSAT data was pretty fucked up. They've left the proof in software where they messed up civilian/military versions and I dunno whether not reporting it or reporting it will get me suicided.

How naive are you? The government says what is legal or illegal and picks who has security clearances. Unless you firmly believe that the government is in the right all the time and sometimes has to do bad things in order to protect people you aren't getting one of those clearances in the first place.

Edward Snowden had a Top Secret security clearance and he revealed a fuckton of secrets.

I'm talking about shit that is extrajudicial - the Snowden stuff was amoral but done through legal loopholes mostly. My point is proof of a conspiracy gathered via satellite imagery is a real issue and they can't entrust coverups to TS clearance people based on a personnel reliability program, they have to be a blackmailed pedo to ensure silence.

Snowden was the exception, not the rule. If he wasn't we would have known about PRISM a lot sooner. There's plenty of more fucked up things the US has done that only a handful of people will ever know about, since they only give clearances to people they trust will never open their mouth about it under any circumstances.

He was the exception because he had the balls and knew the consequences of leaking the data and going on the run.

That's not the dynamic of crimes with intent compartments. PRISM isn't extrajudicial, it's just Top Secret. I'm talking about black ops, illegal shit like CIA pilots spraying syphilis on US cities.

There's a difference between this clearance shit you keep talking about and black ops. I don't mean black projects like super duper special planes, I mean illegal faggot spook shit like pic related.

Attached: Intelligence Agencies Are There To Protect You.jpg (1263x2907, 1.78M)

The US isn't the only nation with spy satellites, if what you're talking about existed other countries (Russia, China, etc) would be bitching about it already.

>Google Earth's Landsat takes a high res snap in the hours following MH370 disappearing. It shows a bunch auxillary US Navy ships tugging a 777 fuselage 100nm north of Diego Garcia and 8 Super Hornets coming in to land at the airfield and you can clearly see they have live sidewinders and sparrows as opposed to captive training rounds and some pylons have missing, expended 'foxes'. The next pass shows CIA agents winching the plane into a sandpit and setting off thermite and a bunch of telltale signs of what happened.
You're over estimating the capability of those satellites.

There is entirely a possibility that a LANDSAT takes a high-res picture over an area and sees something its not supposed to see which has happened before in Taiwan with Patriot launchers and other cases. That's not super high priority to censor so they might have checked and not cared despite it creating controversy.

It's about the capability of the analyst. It might not make any sense to public and it might just look like a blur, but will to a trained analyst they have encyclopedic knowledge of how to identify what they're looking at and classify it.

Look at the first spy satellites, they had to have the reels retrieved and the imagery was terrible but analysts were still able to verify specific objects in what looks like a blur to the layman.

Your entire premise is based on Jow Forums-tier conspiracy theories being true, the actual answer is that they didn't have to censor the US military shooting down MH370 because it didn't happen.

>Jow Forums-tier

You mean that the rothschild navy SEALs cyberjacked it into Diego Garcia to get freescale semiconductor patents.

It's not Jow Forums-tier, the US deleted 20 minutes worth of SOSUS hydrophone data during the period of time when the airliner would have been approaching Diego Garcia given fuel/speed/altitude parameters.

You're obviously a cornball who uses terms like conspiracy theories who hasn't cracked the books. Read some Sy Hersh. He's Jewish if that helps, not that it influences his work in any way - because basically people like you dismiss "conspiracy theories" because you think history began circa 2010s and questioning official narratives means you're a bible belt alex jones-watching retard or a neo-nazi who wants a race war. "Conspiracy theory"-scoffing, calling people cranks who later turned out to be right used to be in the reverse, it was "The Left" who were conspiracy theorists and "The Right" who would trust the official narrative before the 90s.

Spy satellites have always been ahead of commercial sector. But a big problem with your conspiracy theory is the assumption that they take photos of everywhere at the same detail/resolution. They simply don't need to over an ocean.

But even then, to get the high resolution required to resolve an airliner in flight would need a very narrow field of view which makes the likelihood that a casual Earth observation sat picking anything up to be extremely unlikely.
There's a reason spy sats nowdays have the specific orbits they do.

Okay schizo

And if you were going to hijack an airliner and do serious lasting damage, Diego Garcia AFB would be far worse than 9/11. And you couldn't get people to mourn bombers and cruise missiles yet you'd destroy a crucial outpost for the western military and intelligence agencies. It wouldn't be like Pearl Harbor either because the human casualties would be tiny.

>But even then, to get the high resolution required to resolve an airliner in flight

Are you joking? You can see airliners and military aircraft with contrails at 30k+ feet if you look around long enough. The higher they are the more obvious they are. This is a Nimrod MRA4, 60% size of a 777 - pic taken in 2005, it's taken from using azimuths drawn from TACAN beacons and holding pattern estimations from an airfield but it's way out, it's not coming into land yet but making a turn into the pattern. This is at medium-low altitude and is far harder to spot than high altitude aircraft which look bigger and often have artifacts and can be picked out by skimming the sky. That's 2005 tech which has much worse resolution.

Attached: Nimrod MRA4.png (1443x703, 1.59M)

That looks like an aerial photo, not a satellite photo.
Google Earth makes use of more than just satellite imagery.

Here's a small cessna/piper type aircraft. 2009 date, that's at medium altitude, are you trying to say that Google Earth uses SR-71s for aerial photography and it would look that low-res?

That's a sat image.

Attached: 965965386586.png (1453x792, 848K)

Sure, a sat image.
Again, over land where they choose to use higher resolutions for greater detail.
Not over ocean.

Diego Garcia is an island and it does have high res satellite pictures. Not aerial photography because it's a no-fly zone.

All post MH-370 images of the airfield have the B-52s/B-1Bs/B-2s removed despite the B-1Bs being the main CAS aircraft used over Syria in recent years deployed from Diego Garcia which would be there in much higher numbers than usual for the constant rotating strikes, yet year after year are blank parking spaces except for one token refueler. Because they don't want people noting the significance of its role as a strategic bomber base with the name already synonymous with a much wackier 370 theory.