5 ms·

I don't like this. What is the business of a government in regulating the resolution of whatever form of imagery??? If it can be seen from the sky, or from the

by guylhem 12y ago

I don't like this. What is the business of a government in regulating the resolution of whatever form of imagery??? If it can be seen from the sky, or from the street, it's public. Planes, satellites, drones, whatever - you should be free to take pics and sell them if you want. Fortunately, digital camera didn't exist where such kind of laws had been passed, or there would have been similar stupid restrictions (imagine google streetview with n-times 640x480 pics crafted together, or worse - a law restricting the resolution of the reconstructed google streetview you can view on your screen!)

protomyth 12y ago
It was more the military side than the civilian, so digital cameras and the like weren't even a consideration[1]. The military was afraid of others having access to the images or knowing how good the images were they were getting. It seems like those concerns have lessened and thus the new rules. 1) digital is just catching up with film for resolution these days.
dublinben 12y ago
As a US-based company, DigitalGlobe launch and operate their satellites at the whim of Federal regulators. With the advances in privatized spaceflight, I see this field as ripe for disruption from Chinese or Russian based competition.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Good reason to invest in satellite-killing weapons, then.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Which in turn will lead to a booming market in ammunition, MREs, and shovels for digging bunkers.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I mean for the U.S. Gov.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
wahsd 12y ago
I don't think I can agree with that. To a certain extent, I think this will be another one of those fronts where modern technology tries to breach fundamental and human rights. What should give you the right, just because you can fly something over someone's property, to take pictures of them and their private space. The issue is a similar one to drones. Should you be permitted to violate someone's privacy in their own back yard or on their property just because you have the technology to circumvent safeguards? There is no real difference whether the drone is 100 feet above your property or in the ionosphere? If someone put a camera on a stick and held it high enough to tape what goes on in your bedroom or back yard when your children are swimming they would be considered committing an illegal act? In a way, you should have the right to automatically remove your property from satellite imagery. Or maybe you should get royalties for your property being part of the service. In fact, what is the difference between royalties due for commercial use of their images and that of your back yard? There is none, other than that the imagery of your back yard, especially at those resolutions, are a violation of your most basic and fundamental rights as a human. What, is it going to be left to individuals to build visual obstructions to prevent observation from above? So you are now rationalizing how this is all different and how it's justified. Well, what happens when technology is developed that allows real time 1cm resolution, live, 24/7 observation? Or what if technology is developed that allows reconstruction of the interior of your home, maybe even in color resolution based on chemical analysis, and maybe even in real time? Where is the limit? It should lie with the most fundamental rights that are being violated right as we speak. Everyone should have the right to privacy or a choice to profit from it. We are already having the value of our identities and activities harvested from us, are we really going to allow constant and pervasive surveillance to steal our humanity too? At what point do a certain subset of people simply regress to becoming a commodity that is monitored and maintained like cattle on Big USA Ranch?
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  I agree with your general point but: > In fact, what is the difference between royalties due for commercial use of their images and that of your back yard? The difference is that the photographer holds to copyright to any picture they take. The drone/satellite operator would have to explicitly sign the copyright over to you of the pictures of your backyard.
snarfy 12y ago
So if I point a FLIR camera at your house and show every human in it and broadcast it on the internet, that should be public too? I can see it from the street, after all. The resolution limit is due to privacy concerns, the same as with the FLIR cameras.
_delirium 12y ago
> Fortunately, digital camera didn't exist where such kind of laws had been passed, or there would have been similar stupid restrictions Non-digital cameras did exist, and some of the laws were passed because of them. A common class of laws, colloquially called "peeping tom" laws, make it illegal to photograph people through their bedroom windows with high-powered telephoto lenses.
throwaway_yy2Di 12y ago
That's actually what StreetView is required to do in Germany: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/germanys-complicated-relationship-with-google-street-view/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/germanys-complicate... http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-many-german-households-have-opted.html http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-many-germ...

by guylhem 12y ago

protomyth 12y ago

It was more the military side than the civilian, so digital cameras and the like weren't even a consideration[1]. The military was afraid of others having access to the images or knowing how good the images were they were getting. It seems like those concerns have lessened and thus the new rules. 1) digital is just catching up with film for resolution these days.

dublinben 12y ago

As a US-based company, DigitalGlobe launch and operate their satellites at the whim of Federal regulators. With the advances in privatized spaceflight, I see this field as ripe for disruption from Chinese or Russian based competition.

rayiner 12y ago
Good reason to invest in satellite-killing weapons, then.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Which in turn will lead to a booming market in ammunition, MREs, and shovels for digging bunkers.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I mean for the U.S. Gov.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

wahsd 12y ago

I don't think I can agree with that. To a certain extent, I think this will be another one of those fronts where modern technology tries to breach fundamental and human rights. What should give you the right, just because you can fly something over someone's property, to take pictures of them and their private space. The issue is a similar one to drones. Should you be permitted to violate someone's privacy in their own back yard or on their property just because you have the technology to circumvent safeguards? There is no real difference whether the drone is 100 feet above your property or in the ionosphere? If someone put a camera on a stick and held it high enough to tape what goes on in your bedroom or back yard when your children are swimming they would be considered committing an illegal act? In a way, you should have the right to automatically remove your property from satellite imagery. Or maybe you should get royalties for your property being part of the service. In fact, what is the difference between royalties due for commercial use of their images and that of your back yard? There is none, other than that the imagery of your back yard, especially at those resolutions, are a violation of your most basic and fundamental rights as a human. What, is it going to be left to individuals to build visual obstructions to prevent observation from above? So you are now rationalizing how this is all different and how it's justified. Well, what happens when technology is developed that allows real time 1cm resolution, live, 24/7 observation? Or what if technology is developed that allows reconstruction of the interior of your home, maybe even in color resolution based on chemical analysis, and maybe even in real time? Where is the limit? It should lie with the most fundamental rights that are being violated right as we speak. Everyone should have the right to privacy or a choice to profit from it. We are already having the value of our identities and activities harvested from us, are we really going to allow constant and pervasive surveillance to steal our humanity too? At what point do a certain subset of people simply regress to becoming a commodity that is monitored and maintained like cattle on Big USA Ranch?

IgorPartola 12y ago
I agree with your general point but: > In fact, what is the difference between royalties due for commercial use of their images and that of your back yard? The difference is that the photographer holds to copyright to any picture they take. The drone/satellite operator would have to explicitly sign the copyright over to you of the pictures of your backyard.

snarfy 12y ago

So if I point a FLIR camera at your house and show every human in it and broadcast it on the internet, that should be public too? I can see it from the street, after all. The resolution limit is due to privacy concerns, the same as with the FLIR cameras.

_delirium 12y ago

> Fortunately, digital camera didn't exist where such kind of laws had been passed, or there would have been similar stupid restrictions Non-digital cameras did exist, and some of the laws were passed because of them. A common class of laws, colloquially called "peeping tom" laws, make it illegal to photograph people through their bedroom windows with high-powered telephoto lenses.

throwaway_yy2Di 12y ago

That's actually what StreetView is required to do in Germany: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/germanys-complicated-relationship-with-google-street-view/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/germanys-complicate... http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-many-german-households-have-opted.html http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-many-germ...