A Berlin artist says he faked a major tailback in the German capital by hacking Google Maps. His aim: to flag concerns over the concentration of data in the tech giant’s mapping service on its 15th birthday.
Simon Weckert published a video online showing him pulling a cart through the centre of Berlin, past Google’s headquarters in the city. In the cart: 99 smartphones from friends and strangers, all with Google Maps running.
When their location was transmitted to the Google Maps servers, he said, a massive red warning appeared on the street that, apart from himself and a few cyclists, was empty of car traffic.
“Google’s map service has fundamentally changed our understanding of what a map is, how we interact with maps, their technological limitations, and how they look aesthetically,” he said of his art project to turn streets red and redirect traffic to other routes.
He said his motivation was not to cause traffic havoc but to explore the “the relationship between the art of enabling and techniques of supervision, control and regulation in Google’s maps”. In particular he wanted to flag how such maps can now change human behaviour based on live location data – even if those changes are based on flawed information.
His project, he said, was also about flagging the dangers of so many other services – such as the online car service Uber – all basing themselves on one mapping service that is open to being hacked.
“Is it really right that we all use this central system or would it be more sensible to share data amongst ourselves and to develop our own services?” he asked.
A Google spokesperson declined to say whether the claimed artistic hack had happened, saying its maps service draws live traffic information from many sources, including anonymised user location data.
“Whether via car or cart or camel,” the spokesperson added, “we love seeing creative uses of Google Maps as it helps us make maps work better over time.”
Mr Weckert is unapologetic about his project, saying his concerns remain: “There is a famous quote that we shape our tools and then our tools shape us. And that’s the way it is: increasingly we’re adapting to the technology rather than the other way round.”
