4 ms·

Was he flying his drone over restricted airspace? If he's potentially declassifying top secret military information, he should have known this was coming.

awb 4y ago
He states that the raid was likely related to photos but denies that the photos were taken inside the base. > According to Hellow, an agent present at the Vegas raid told her: “Your boyfriend took pictures of a military installation—that’s against the law.” In a blog post on Dreamland, Arnu similarly said that all he was told about the investigation was that it was “related to images posted on my Area 51 website.” > Taking an unauthorized picture of a defense installation (such as a military base) is a federal misdemeanor offense—on par with hunting or fishing in a wildlife refuge. It carries with it a punishment of a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. > However, Arnu maintains that he never broke the law and that the government’s case against him—whatever it is—has zero merit. “I had some photos [on my website] of Area 51 that were about two years old,” said Arnu, which he believes were the reason for the raid. “They were legally obtained. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about them,” he said. “Most of these photos were not taken by me, I just published them [on the site].” He adds that they were “not classified photos” and that they “were not taken from inside the boundary”—that is, the area inside the perimeter of the base that is off-limits to civilians. Arnu says the photos had already been widely circulated on other news websites and TV shows, making it inexplicable why the government would target him and him alone.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  > Taking an unauthorized picture of a defense installation (such as a military base) is a federal misdemeanor offense But what if it isn't? The oft-cited law doesn't actually forbid taking photos, rather their improper publication or distribution. The cops stretch "whoever reproduces" to include the taking and saving of a picture onto a memory card, but that is a huge stretch that hasn't properly been hashed out by the courts. Simply seeing something and photographing or sketching it, if standing in a public space, is very likely not a federal crime. "...whoever reproduces, publishes, sells, or gives away any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of the vital military or naval installations or equipment so defined, without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/797 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/797
- joezydeco 4y ago
  denies that the photos were taken inside the base Those are pretty squirrely words when you're flying a drone outside the fence but 1000' up.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

awb 4y ago

He states that the raid was likely related to photos but denies that the photos were taken inside the base. > According to Hellow, an agent present at the Vegas raid told her: “Your boyfriend took pictures of a military installation—that’s against the law.” In a blog post on Dreamland, Arnu similarly said that all he was told about the investigation was that it was “related to images posted on my Area 51 website.” > Taking an unauthorized picture of a defense installation (such as a military base) is a federal misdemeanor offense—on par with hunting or fishing in a wildlife refuge. It carries with it a punishment of a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. > However, Arnu maintains that he never broke the law and that the government’s case against him—whatever it is—has zero merit. “I had some photos [on my website] of Area 51 that were about two years old,” said Arnu, which he believes were the reason for the raid. “They were legally obtained. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about them,” he said. “Most of these photos were not taken by me, I just published them [on the site].” He adds that they were “not classified photos” and that they “were not taken from inside the boundary”—that is, the area inside the perimeter of the base that is off-limits to civilians. Arnu says the photos had already been widely circulated on other news websites and TV shows, making it inexplicable why the government would target him and him alone.

sandworm101 4y ago
> Taking an unauthorized picture of a defense installation (such as a military base) is a federal misdemeanor offense But what if it isn't? The oft-cited law doesn't actually forbid taking photos, rather their improper publication or distribution. The cops stretch "whoever reproduces" to include the taking and saving of a picture onto a memory card, but that is a huge stretch that hasn't properly been hashed out by the courts. Simply seeing something and photographing or sketching it, if standing in a public space, is very likely not a federal crime. "...whoever reproduces, publishes, sells, or gives away any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of the vital military or naval installations or equipment so defined, without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/797 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/797
joezydeco 4y ago
denies that the photos were taken inside the base Those are pretty squirrely words when you're flying a drone outside the fence but 1000' up.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]