7 ms·

I don't think the drones flew over the installation. Rather, the article states, "features YouTube videos taken from drones flown over places around Area 51".

I don't think the drones flew over the installation. Rather, the article states, "features YouTube videos taken from drones flown over places around Area 51". (emphasis mine) So long as the areas are either public lands, or he has permission from the owners, and follows FAA regs on drone operations, nothing wrong with it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
shitpostbot 4y ago
toss1 4y ago
WRONG Even if in plain view, it can be very illegal [0]. Never assume that your own "common-sense" expectation of how the law or taxes works is the way it actually works. You are almost always guaranteed to be wrong [1]. In this case, your error could have seriously bad consequences,and your ignorance would be no excuse >> "(a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary. (b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795 [1] Married to a top attny, the first thing said about almost any question is "go read the actual contract or the actual code" before even bothering to start reasoning about the thing. Even an attny's inital assumptions are very often wrong. We'd (at least should) be saying the same thing about any software system.
- mindslight 4y ago
  The flip side is that the rights and freedoms we take for granted in the US are fundamentally upheld by the people believing that we have them. The broad first pass in this case is referenced by the 1st amendment, which we generally take to mean living in an open society where we have the freedom to report on what we can observe. This thread being full of people chiming in to defend the general concept, regardless of whatever small-picture legal theory has motivated the government to do this, demonstrates this dynamic. Ultimately, the more people that naively say "These actions are plainly un-American", the better off we are.
  - toss1 4y ago
    You are saying that it is plainly un-American to have military secrets? They go back to George Washington, before the founding of the country. The rights and freedoms we have are not absolute. They are also tempered by responsibility to maintain, sometimes by force, the ability to have those freedoms. Of course, all of us would like to live without the need for police or military. But the fact of the actual (not ideal) world is that there are always bullies and authoritarians who are happy to take what they want and rule how they like, not by assent or fairness, but by deceit, force, and violence. Anyone who wants to live a self-determining life or live in a democracy must be better armed than the bullies and expansionist autocracies, or they will soon be ruled by them. Military and technological secrets are a key part of maintaining an advantage over expansionist autocracies, and are at least as American than Apple Pie. So, NO, people claiming that we should not have a military or secret technologies are not making us better off — they are literally helping undermine the only force that keeps us from being ruled by the likes of Putin or Xi. Ask any Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, or Taiwanese. They did not enjoy the privilege of growing up well-enough protected to be ignorant of the threat. Consider that before posting that ignorance.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      You do realize there is a huge distinction between having military secrets, and persecuting private citizens who report on things that are openly discoverable, right? This tension has also been there the whole time. Leaking classified information is a crime, while propagating information that has leaked into the public domain is not. For good reason - those with deliberate access to classified information have been entrusted to keep it secret, whereas the public and the press have not. As far as military advantage, we are made stronger by the military needing to stay ahead of the investigations of an open society. Because if private citizens can discover things from mere curiosity then foreign spy agencies most certainly can. If you care about military strength, attempts by the military to maintain superiority by lazily asserting control over civil society should concern you very much.
alexb_ 4y ago
The airspace around area 51 is restricted airspace.
- postalrat 4y ago
  For how far? For example it doesn't extend to the atlantic ocean.
  - aqfamnzc 4y ago
    Airspace classification is pretty well-defined in the US. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101 https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airs...
  - rch 4y ago
    If they have a sign on the fence that says 'no photography' then that would probably apply to a weather balloon irrespective of distance. The signs are also probably not needed.
- andrewinardeer 4y ago
  I believe the drones belong to the US military, not the website owner.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

shitpostbot 4y ago

toss1 4y ago

WRONG Even if in plain view, it can be very illegal [0]. Never assume that your own "common-sense" expectation of how the law or taxes works is the way it actually works. You are almost always guaranteed to be wrong [1]. In this case, your error could have seriously bad consequences,and your ignorance would be no excuse >> "(a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary. (b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795 [1] Married to a top attny, the first thing said about almost any question is "go read the actual contract or the actual code" before even bothering to start reasoning about the thing. Even an attny's inital assumptions are very often wrong. We'd (at least should) be saying the same thing about any software system.

mindslight 4y ago
The flip side is that the rights and freedoms we take for granted in the US are fundamentally upheld by the people believing that we have them. The broad first pass in this case is referenced by the 1st amendment, which we generally take to mean living in an open society where we have the freedom to report on what we can observe. This thread being full of people chiming in to defend the general concept, regardless of whatever small-picture legal theory has motivated the government to do this, demonstrates this dynamic. Ultimately, the more people that naively say "These actions are plainly un-American", the better off we are.
- toss1 4y ago
  You are saying that it is plainly un-American to have military secrets? They go back to George Washington, before the founding of the country. The rights and freedoms we have are not absolute. They are also tempered by responsibility to maintain, sometimes by force, the ability to have those freedoms. Of course, all of us would like to live without the need for police or military. But the fact of the actual (not ideal) world is that there are always bullies and authoritarians who are happy to take what they want and rule how they like, not by assent or fairness, but by deceit, force, and violence. Anyone who wants to live a self-determining life or live in a democracy must be better armed than the bullies and expansionist autocracies, or they will soon be ruled by them. Military and technological secrets are a key part of maintaining an advantage over expansionist autocracies, and are at least as American than Apple Pie. So, NO, people claiming that we should not have a military or secret technologies are not making us better off — they are literally helping undermine the only force that keeps us from being ruled by the likes of Putin or Xi. Ask any Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, or Taiwanese. They did not enjoy the privilege of growing up well-enough protected to be ignorant of the threat. Consider that before posting that ignorance.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    You do realize there is a huge distinction between having military secrets, and persecuting private citizens who report on things that are openly discoverable, right? This tension has also been there the whole time. Leaking classified information is a crime, while propagating information that has leaked into the public domain is not. For good reason - those with deliberate access to classified information have been entrusted to keep it secret, whereas the public and the press have not. As far as military advantage, we are made stronger by the military needing to stay ahead of the investigations of an open society. Because if private citizens can discover things from mere curiosity then foreign spy agencies most certainly can. If you care about military strength, attempts by the military to maintain superiority by lazily asserting control over civil society should concern you very much.

alexb_ 4y ago

The airspace around area 51 is restricted airspace.

postalrat 4y ago
For how far? For example it doesn't extend to the atlantic ocean.
- aqfamnzc 4y ago
  Airspace classification is pretty well-defined in the US. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101 https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airs...
- rch 4y ago
  If they have a sign on the fence that says 'no photography' then that would probably apply to a weather balloon irrespective of distance. The signs are also probably not needed.
andrewinardeer 4y ago
I believe the drones belong to the US military, not the website owner.