• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, March 4, 2009

A lawmaker in California has introduced a bill that would require Web sites like Google Maps to blur any photos of schools, churches, government buildings and hospitals. Operators of companies that don't follow the law would be subject to up to three years in jail.

This measure, proposed by California assembly member Joel Anderson, is preposterous for many reasons. Most obviously, there's a constitutional problem. The First Amendment protects people's right to take and post photos in public. Lawmakers would need some pretty compelling reasons for restricting that right.

The rationale, presumably, is that terrorists might use satellite photos when planning attacks. But it's not as if terrorists have ever needed the Internet to be effective.

Then there's the language of the bill. It would apply to the operator "of a commercial Internet Web site or online service that makes a virtual globe browser available to members of the public." That definition leaves quite a bit to be desired, but one thing is clear: It wouldn't apply to print media.

In other words, photos in printed newspapers, magazines and books would continue to be allowed to appear with details intact, while those online would be criminalized.

Anderson is trying to tie this measure to another California law requiring Web sites to post links on their home pages to privacy policies, and the proposed bill specifically mentions that state law.

But there's a huge difference between the surreptitious collection of information like Web pages visited and the posting of photos of buildings and streets that are open to public view.

Many people expect -- logically or not -- that their Web activity is private. When sites actually collect information about that activity, the least they can do is inform users of that so they can decide how to proceed. On the other hand, the appearance of buildings on publicly accessible streets is, by definition, public information.