5 ms·
It's a farce that you need a license to take pictures at all. I'm sure Russian and Chinese satellites already take photos of the US military bases regularly.
by bufferoverflow 9y ago
It's a farce that you need a license to take pictures at all. I'm sure Russian and Chinese satellites already take photos of the US military bases regularly.
- kirillseva 9y agoJust as US military satellites take pictures of Russian and Chinese facilities as well. Both can play this game
- Mononokay 9y agoI don't think anyone contested that...?
- TallGuyShort 9y agoSo it would be pretty silly for Russia to ban similar cameras for fear of state secrets being uncovered, right?
- kirillseva 9y agoOh no, don't get me wrong, I think the regulation is totally stupid. Why bother regulating something over which you have no control of? It is just putting unnecessary barriers for domestic innovators while your real competition is not wasting precious cycles.
- MBCook 9y agoThey’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.
- jonknee 9y agoWhich makes it even more dumb, the people we don't want taking pictures do so at will while the people we don't mind taking pictures are banned.
- choward 9y agoIt's also dumb because it gives them incentive to just move to another country that doesn't care.
- cwkoss 9y agoWelcome to most laws.
- dclowd9901 9y agoI don't know about you, but Facebook is under US jurisdiction, and I'd rather they didn't launch a remote-sensing satellite without going through some regulatory hoops.
- drharby 9y agoSpeak for yourself - i dont want companies taking pictures.
- jonknee 9y agoBut they do, commercial satellite imagery is a big business (anyone who has used Google Earth knows this). It's just not the business SpaceX is in so it's not worth going through the hassle.
- drharby 9y agoThat wasnt the main idea of my statement. I contend that my desire differs from parent comments claim
- phkahler 9y agoWhat gives that agency jurisdiction over things in orbit? This whole thing seems really strange.
- legalist 9y agoThey have jurisdiction over the SpaceX as a US company, thus the power to force them to adhere to regs
- MBCook 9y agoThe US Government has granted NOAA that authority over American companies and the things they put into orbit. They don’t have that authority over things OTHER countries and their companies put into orbit.
- Balgair 9y agoThey better as fuck not be : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talk... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
- monocasa 9y agoThose have all either expired or weren't ratified, and the current treaty (New START) explicitly allows satellite monitoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
- Balgair 9y agodepends on the type of monitoring
- freehunter 9y agoSince we're talking about cameras and not missiles, I ctrl+f'd for "picture" and "camera" on all of those links and didn't see any results. Do those treaties prohibit cameras?
- Balgair 9y agodepends on the camera, IR is pretty well forbidden