7 ms·

But why does the license exist?

by msl09 9y ago

pmorici 9y ago
The NOAA statement on the issue seems to imply that the rule exists because the government wants a measure of control over images of the Earth's surface for "national security" reasons. [0] http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-b...
- HenryBemis 9y ago
  And let me guess, they also run this through the respective Russian, Chinese, Japanese, French, Spanish, 'NOAAs' so that nobody spies on anyone's secret areas (51? ;).
- a012 9y ago
  What's the point? Doesn't China, Russia, and EU have a lot of sats and what if they decide to broadcast like SpaceX? US will threaten them?
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    The whole point is to prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already, not some conspiracy to prevent Americans from seeing the earth. Other countries are free to broadcast their data to the world if they like. The US will probably learn nothing new about the Earth but would learn of at least some chacteristics of other country's satellite tech
    - bpicolo 9y ago
      > prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already Pretty easy for a nation-state to launch a surveillance satellite with much better optics, I imagine.
      - bitcurious 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_orbital_launches_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_orbital_laun... This is a list of nations that have managed to put something in orbit. It contains 10 nations, and the ESA. The vast majority of nations do not have the capability.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        That's a list of nations capable of launching stuff on their own. Compare with this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_... Non-space-capable countries do routinely put their payload on the rockets of countries with launch capability (though I guess then it can't be an obvious spy satellite).
      - some_random 9y ago
        I suppose nation-states aren't the only ones who'd like information on US military bases/infrastructure/"nationalsecurityinterests", but I honestly think it's irrelevant. If we were discussing serious imaging systems then sure, but it's pretty clear that a webcam isn't going to give anyone any meaningful information.
        grigjd3 9y ago
        The point is that you don't hand out the license trivially. Yes, spacex is just discussing this in the context of a glorified webcam, but webcasts aren't their only business. Such a license needs to consider the whole business. Now the NOAA perhaps should consider a type of limited license, but they can't assume the only imagery technology spacex is interested in is webcams.
slyall 9y ago
Reading : https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html I'm guessing: * They don't want the satellite taking and selling photos of secret US government stuff (or Israel or other areas that would cause the US government grief). * They want to make sure the satellite doesn't crash or otherwise cause problems for which the US would be liable.
notahacker 9y ago
There are privacy implications for air or space based surveillance of the Earth (rather more so for high resolution photography of specific areas of land than video in which the earth is merely a backdrop, but drawing that distinction isn't necessarily trivial). The solution the United States has adopted is to regulate the extent to which commercial entities are entitled to distribute such imagery and video; licensing who is entitled to distribute such images forms part of that regime.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  > drawing that distinction isn't necessarily trivial Meters per pixel. If it's >20, just give it blanket permission.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    That's probably the most practical option, but even that distinction isn't necessarily straightforward in a launch video (and even the sort of 20m multispectral imagery that's freely made available to the entire world by multiple providers including NASA becomes more of a possible privacy/security issue if remote sensing operators were to permanently point their cameras at the same location). The regulation was likely drafted with a view to the future in an era where all satellite based EO had low spatial resolutions and processing techniques were in their infancy anyway.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      > even that distinction isn't necessarily straightforward in a launch video From what I understand the trouble point is when they hit orbit, and by then they're plenty far away to meet the cutoff.
logfromblammo 9y ago
Because everything on the surface of the Earth is visible from space, and some people have put things on the surface of the Earth that they would prefer certain other people not know about. If the license is required to sense remotely, the issuing agency can do some research, then tell the licensee "you cannot broadcast, transmit, or record for later transmission images taken from T+5:53:11 to T+5:56:43". And then they check the flight path, and that's when the vehicle will be directly over one of the Aleutian islands. The engineers shrug their shoulders, and program a 4-minute blackout into the cameras. And the crew in Alaska can then go around throwing camouflage netting over everything, and inflate the decoys, and not do any work outside, during any times that an object known or suspected to have imaging devices on it passes overhead. It's a temporary measure, as the superpowers continue to move their most important secret facilities to camouflaged, submarine, or underground facilities. But it won't be long before someone's cubesat with commercial-grade camera unwittingly images something it shouldn't, and the Men in Black visit the owner with a DoD order to classify all their electronic equipment as "Top Secret", with a "no-foreign" endorsement. It would all be confiscated, examined, scrubbed, declassified, and returned after a few months. The license is likely so that the keepers of the secrets can know the imaging capabilities of some of the objects they track in orbit, and maybe get some cooperation from the owners.

But why does the license exist?

by msl09 9y ago

But why does the license exist?

The NOAA statement on the issue seems to imply that the rule exists because the government wants a measure of control over images of the Earth's surface for "national security" reasons. [0] http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-b...

HenryBemis 9y ago
And let me guess, they also run this through the respective Russian, Chinese, Japanese, French, Spanish, 'NOAAs' so that nobody spies on anyone's secret areas (51? ;).
a012 9y ago
What's the point? Doesn't China, Russia, and EU have a lot of sats and what if they decide to broadcast like SpaceX? US will threaten them?
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  The whole point is to prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already, not some conspiracy to prevent Americans from seeing the earth. Other countries are free to broadcast their data to the world if they like. The US will probably learn nothing new about the Earth but would learn of at least some chacteristics of other country's satellite tech
  - bpicolo 9y ago
    > prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already Pretty easy for a nation-state to launch a surveillance satellite with much better optics, I imagine.
    - bitcurious 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_orbital_launches_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_orbital_laun... This is a list of nations that have managed to put something in orbit. It contains 10 nations, and the ESA. The vast majority of nations do not have the capability.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        That's a list of nations capable of launching stuff on their own. Compare with this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_... Non-space-capable countries do routinely put their payload on the rockets of countries with launch capability (though I guess then it can't be an obvious spy satellite).
    - some_random 9y ago
      I suppose nation-states aren't the only ones who'd like information on US military bases/infrastructure/"nationalsecurityinterests", but I honestly think it's irrelevant. If we were discussing serious imaging systems then sure, but it's pretty clear that a webcam isn't going to give anyone any meaningful information.
      - grigjd3 9y ago
        The point is that you don't hand out the license trivially. Yes, spacex is just discussing this in the context of a glorified webcam, but webcasts aren't their only business. Such a license needs to consider the whole business. Now the NOAA perhaps should consider a type of limited license, but they can't assume the only imagery technology spacex is interested in is webcams.

slyall 9y ago

Reading : https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html I'm guessing: * They don't want the satellite taking and selling photos of secret US government stuff (or Israel or other areas that would cause the US government grief). * They want to make sure the satellite doesn't crash or otherwise cause problems for which the US would be liable.

notahacker 9y ago

There are privacy implications for air or space based surveillance of the Earth (rather more so for high resolution photography of specific areas of land than video in which the earth is merely a backdrop, but drawing that distinction isn't necessarily trivial). The solution the United States has adopted is to regulate the extent to which commercial entities are entitled to distribute such imagery and video; licensing who is entitled to distribute such images forms part of that regime.

Dylan16807 9y ago
> drawing that distinction isn't necessarily trivial Meters per pixel. If it's >20, just give it blanket permission.
- notahacker 9y ago
  That's probably the most practical option, but even that distinction isn't necessarily straightforward in a launch video (and even the sort of 20m multispectral imagery that's freely made available to the entire world by multiple providers including NASA becomes more of a possible privacy/security issue if remote sensing operators were to permanently point their cameras at the same location). The regulation was likely drafted with a view to the future in an era where all satellite based EO had low spatial resolutions and processing techniques were in their infancy anyway.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    > even that distinction isn't necessarily straightforward in a launch video From what I understand the trouble point is when they hit orbit, and by then they're plenty far away to meet the cutoff.

logfromblammo 9y ago

Because everything on the surface of the Earth is visible from space, and some people have put things on the surface of the Earth that they would prefer certain other people not know about. If the license is required to sense remotely, the issuing agency can do some research, then tell the licensee "you cannot broadcast, transmit, or record for later transmission images taken from T+5:53:11 to T+5:56:43". And then they check the flight path, and that's when the vehicle will be directly over one of the Aleutian islands. The engineers shrug their shoulders, and program a 4-minute blackout into the cameras. And the crew in Alaska can then go around throwing camouflage netting over everything, and inflate the decoys, and not do any work outside, during any times that an object known or suspected to have imaging devices on it passes overhead. It's a temporary measure, as the superpowers continue to move their most important secret facilities to camouflaged, submarine, or underground facilities. But it won't be long before someone's cubesat with commercial-grade camera unwittingly images something it shouldn't, and the Men in Black visit the owner with a DoD order to classify all their electronic equipment as "Top Secret", with a "no-foreign" endorsement. It would all be confiscated, examined, scrubbed, declassified, and returned after a few months. The license is likely so that the keepers of the secrets can know the imaging capabilities of some of the objects they track in orbit, and maybe get some cooperation from the owners.