Satellite Pics Going Dark?

isdale writes "Defense Tech reports the U.S. Gov't. is proposing to exempt satellite images from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The proposed exemption has already passed the Senate and awaits House/Senate conference committee this month. Not only does the exemption apply to Gov't. satellite images, but also any commercial satellite images the gov't buys and 'any... other product that is derived from such data.' That would include maps, reports, news footage, etc. This would heavily impact news gathering and probably the income of commercial satellite operators - who would only be able to sell to the U.S. Govt. And how big is the deficit already?" peter303 writes with a more optimistic story in USA Today " about building and launching a satellite for as little as $65K," as long as you can squeeze it into a 4 inch-cube.

Comments

Crinkle crinkle

[Anonymous Coward]

Ready the Slashdot tinfoil hatters ...

Re:Crinkle crinkle

[russeljns]

Now they can send us to war on claims that they have photos of chemical weapons labs in whatever country. But of coarse we can't see them, the photos are all classified.

Re:Crinkle crinkle

[russeljns]

meant to post that with extrans...
</tinfoil hat>

Re:Crinkle crinkle

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they can send us to war on claims that they have photos of chemical weapons labs in whatever country. But of coarse we can't see them, the photos are all classified

Right, because in the days when we *could* see the photos, we all saw right through the deceit. Powell's performance in front of the UN didn't fool anybody - mobile weapons labs indeed! Harumph! Any fool can see that those trucks are for filling helium balloons.

Re:Crinkle crinkle

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the commercial imagery vendors "blacked out" the imagery before giving it to the government and that's where the WMD claims came into play. We can't see that area so it has to have WMD's.

Re:Crinkle crinkle

[Cat_Byte]

Now they can send us to war on claims that they have photos of chemical weapons labs in whatever country. But of coarse we can't see them, the photos are all classified.

Don't fall for the media blasting of current administration. Before it is blacked out, I challenge you to find a WMD sitting out in plain sight in any country in a satellite image. They're not like the family car. You don't just leave them out in plain sight. The Cuban missile crisis was during a time when citizens couldn't just look at satellite imagery and they gladly ran the images on television. It's obvious this has nothing to do with the WMD subject so please try not to start a flame war with liberal comments like this.

Re:Crinkle crinkle

[sumdumass]

nahh they were carying ingredients for saddams chocolate chip factory

Re:Crinkle crinkle

[russeljns]

wasn't trying to flame. actually, i stupidly forget to set the comment mode to extrans. there was supposed to be at the end. it was a failed attempt at humor.

Re:Crinkle crinkle

[Cat_Byte]

lol I hate it when that happens. I forget the extrans all the time.

Unreal

[StevenHenderson]

As Barbara Cochran, head of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, notes, the press relies on satellite pictures constantly, to track everything from weather to war to population shifts.

Good to know that they would want to take away technology access that allowed people to evacuate before the hurricanes in Florida. Un-fucking-real.

Re:Unreal

[Anonymous Coward]

I really doubt that the images are much more useful than weather radar when tracking hurricanes.

Re:Unreal

[iocat]

The story is crazy on its face -- paranoid and just totally off base. It seems they want to exempt satellite imagery from FOIA. That doesn't mean that they still wouldn't release hell of information into the public domain, as they do now. It seems more likely that they don't want to have to release pictures of things that they found interesting, or even release information on where they wanted pictures of.

Re:Unreal

[SirWhoopass]

Maybe you should try and read the article and the proposed law before jumping to conclusions.

This would only prohibit the release of data that is already prohibited from sale to customers other than the US Government.

As it currently stands, commerical imagery operators are prohibited from selling certain data to anyone but the government. Third parties cannot buy this data. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from filing a Freedom of Information request once the government buys it. This would close that loophole.

Re:Unreal

[cynic10508]

Good to know that they would want to take away technology access that allowed people to evacuate before the hurricanes in Florida. Un-fucking-real.

First line of the story: "You might be able to see the hurricanes heading for Florida. Maybe. But just about all other commercial satellite imagery could be put off-limits, if a new Senate bill goes through as planned."

Re:Unreal

[robsimmon]

Weather satellites are owned and operated by the government, not commerical operators. They will likely remain available. And yes, satellites provide information that land-based weather radar can not. (how many radar stations are there in the middle of the Atlantic?) Of course, the NASA is trying to kill TRMM, the only satellite-based weather radar, but that's another story.

Re:Unreal

[Luigi30]

Don't you remember what happened last time someone tried to file a FOI request? The Secret Service bullied him into cancelling it.

Re:Unreal

[sgant]

Don't you remember what happened last time someone tried to file a FOI request? The Secret Service bullied him into cancelling it.

No, I dont remember this. Remind me please...with links?

Thanks!

Re:Unreal

[StevenHenderson]

MAYBE.

Re:Unreal

[cynic10508]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121082&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=153&mode=thread&cid=101 93804

Re:Unreal

[jfengel]

People file FOIA requests all the time, successfully. Just the most recent example off the top of my head was more Bush guard unit records, and there are many many more.

I believe the present government is too secretive, and I can't swear the Secret Service has never shown up at somebody's door to politely suggest cancelling a request, but the act is used all the time.

Re:Unreal

[shalla]

I'm still not following why I should not have access to information 1) categorized as unclassified and 2) purchased by my government. If it's a security threat, then classify it. If not, my money paid for it and if I can be bothered to fill out a FOIA request, I should have access to it.

(To quote from the proposed bill: Compelled release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national security by mandating disclosure to the general public upon request. While the data and imagery could be protected from disclosure under FOIA by classifying them, the United States prefers to keep them unclassified. Unclassified matter is more easily shared with coalition partners in contingency operations and with State and local officials in disaster relief and homeland security operations. )

Restricting the public's access to unclassified government information to protect a profit motive is not a step with which I'm comfortable. If it's a security risk, classify it, but don't start blocking access to unclassified information just because you can't be bothered to make it classified because it make take an extra step or two to share the info.

If it doesn't fall into one of the nine exempted areas of FOIA and you can't be bothered to make it classified, we paid for the damn information and should be able to make use of it.

Re:Unreal

[SpaceLifeForm]

Exactly. Years ago (around 1996), one of the satpics (infrared) indicated an anomaly over North Korea.

Re:Unreal

[Anonymous Coward]

The FOIA is not a "loophole." It's one of the few remaining checks on an out-of-control government, now rapidly disappearing.

Re:Unreal

[HokieJP]

Except that radar's range is limited by the curvature of the earth, and thus it cannot sense what's happening far over the oceans, where there are no radar stations. Coincidentally, hurricanes form over the open ocean. Jackass.

Re:Unreal

[stratjakt]

Huh? Are you on crack? People file hundreds if not thousands of FOIA requests every day, the vast majority of which are fulfilled. Mostly for mundane shit, tax records, etc.

There are some laws that trump FOIA, like HIPAA (I can't request Sgt Someguy's medical history from the Army).

Some of these restrictions are really bad, the TSA is excempt from the FOIA, so noone knows exactly what the rules at the airports are.

Anyways, what in the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Unreal

[Jameth]

Ah, so they're only allowed to withold unclassified information from us if they don't let others buy it. So, they can keep unclassified information classified, just because...and this Freedom of Information Act works most of the time, except on occasion, even though the data isn't important enough to be classified?

I'm somewhat confused. Can you explain to me again why I can't look at unclassified information?

Re:Unreal

[Gentlewhisper]

>>The Secret Service bullied him into cancelling it.

>No, I dont remember this. Remind me please...with links?

Then it wouldn't be secret anymore, right?

Re:Unreal

[SirWhoopass]

Just because it isn't classified doesn't mean the information should be posted on every corner. A lot of information is designated "for official use only", which is dependant upon the agency. It isn't classified, but it also isn't freely distributed.

There are specific legal guidelines regarding classified information. This includes how to classify it, how to store it, how to transport it, and when/how to destroy it. There is a lot of information that should be kept private, but doesn't meet the guidelines for classification.

A directory of all department employees, home phone, address, emergency contact, and home email is an example. This information is not classified. However, I do not know anyone that would want their employer making suck a directory public.

The other main issue regards the distribution of information. State police, fire, and other emergency officials do not have access to classified information at any level. Yet I can imagine information that the federal government may wish to distribute to them while not wanting to make it public knowledge.

Re:Unreal

[transient]

Radar and satellite imagery aren't interchangeable when it comes to weather. Radar is used to detect precipitation, and suffers from a number of problems based on its use of radio emissions (masking, bending, line-of-sight, false returns, and so on). Satellite imagery is usually used to determine temperature, which in turn can be used to ascertain the presence of clouds and their height.

Re:Unreal

[mibus]

However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from filing a Freedom of Information request once the government buys it. This would close that loophole.

That's not a loophole, that's the point.

It's not like they'll say it's only exempt from the FOIA for n-years either, it seems pretty permanent to me...

Re:Unreal

[Long-EZ]

People file FOIA requests all the time, successfully.

I've seen some of the info released under the FOI Act. If it's at all interesting information, like what the FBI was doing during the Nixon administration, the released "information" is nothing but large black redacted areas. After the security screening, all that is left is _____ was ______ _____ at ______ when ______ _____ and _________ ______ ____.

I guess only the little words are free. Hey, can I buy a vowel?

As for the sat photos, the US military bought exclusive rights to the commercial satellite images during the early days of the Iraq War. Compliance wasn't an option, and the order pre-empted any existing business agreements. Totally non-negotiable.

I'm not saying they should endanger troops by letting anyone with a $30 balance on their credit card download photos showing troop strength and deployment. Besides, Geraldo Rivera provided that info for free on the fair and balanced Fox News.

But on the other hand, it's bad for democracy when citizens aren't allowed to see what the government is doing. I can't think of a good middle ground in this case, but I don't like either extreme.

Re:Unreal

[Codifex Maximus]

I have to agree. If it ain't classified then it should be available. If it concerns National Security then it damn well better be classified!

Profit should have nothing to do with government purchased information being or not being classified; security should be the reason.

Re:Unreal

[cluckshot]

This law is a classical US Government case of closing the barn door after the cows are out. The Russians, French and soon to be many others are selling the data without the blackouts on the open market around the world. The photos you see on the news are not US Photos. They are French or Russian. The ESA is proposing to provide sub 1m resolution photos soon. They are also building their own GPS type system.

The only people who will be prohibited from seeing the data under this act are the rightful owners of the data the US Taxpayers who should be seeing them in order to make valid decisions on Political Leaders. This act is just an attempt to prevent the voters from being able to call the politicos to the stand and demand the truth. All it will do is prevent Americans from getting the pictures from SPOT and the Russians etc.

It means Al Qaeda will be able to get the pictures but the US Voters will not! It means that the US Government regards the US Voters as the real terrorists. Wake up people this isn't tin foil hat stuff! Bluntly the US Government is more interested in corking the US Voters information streams than it is in policing up the Al Qaeda types.

Re:Unreal

[LifesABeach]

Boycotts just don't work in the Internatioal Market.

There are other companies outside of the U.S. that sell satellite photos all the time, to anyone. I'm thinking Russia, France, and Sweden will make nice unexpected profits off of this; if this becomes law.

Which brings up a chilling question. Is U.S. Intelligence Gathering not?

Re:Unreal

[shalla]

A directory of all department employees, home phone, address, emergency contact, and home email is an example. This information is not classified. However, I do not know anyone that would want their employer making suck a directory public.

If you're talking a private company, then of course the information isn't classified, but it also is not public. It wasn't paid for by your tax dollars, and FOIA doesn't apply to it.

If you're talking about the government, while such personal information is not classified, it DOES meet one of the other areas specified in the FOIA as exempt from FOIA (personal privacy, in this case, and possibly internal personnel rules and practices). FYI, those exemptions (taken from here) are:

Exemption 1: Classified Documents
Exemption 2: Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
Exemption 3: Information Exempt Under Other Laws
Exemption 4: Confidential Business Information
Exemption 5: Internal Government Communications
Exemption 6: Personal Privacy
Exemption 7: Law Enforcement
Exemption 8: Financial Institutions
Exemption 9: Geological Information

What's my point? My point is that the argument that some unclassified information should be restricted by the government is fine and dandy, but we've already specified what areas those are. I don't think we need to expand them anymore. I certainly don't want to suddenly start restricting things like satellite images and derivatives yet not classifying them because state employees might possibly need them. I'm all for moderation in restriction. :)

Say goodbye to Xplanet?

[unixmaster]

Software like Xplanet be effected too? I hope not.

Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet?

[ackthpt]

Software like Xplanet be effected too? I hope not.

How long before your GPSr goes dark, too?

Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet?

[legirons]

"Software like Xplanet be affected too? I hope not."

XPlanet takes its data from university of Dundee, which uses MeteoSat. From meteosat's page, they say:

EUMETSAT is an intergovernmental organisation created through an international convention agreed by 18 European Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. These States fund the EUMETSAT programmes and are the principal users of the systems. EUMETSAT also has nine Cooperating States: Slovak Republic, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Romania, the Czech Republic and Latvia.

Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet?

[unixmaster]

Xplanet is safe then! Nice to know :)

Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet?

[Minwee]

No, it was effected years ago. It wil not be affected either.

Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet?

[Anonymous Coward]

How sure are you that it will not be affected?

End of another domestic market

[cshotton]

All this means is that the market for domestically produced satellite imagery will evaporate overnight and the owner/operators of foreign imagery services will profit enormously as US customers procure data from an open, unfettered market abroad. Another nail in the coffin of privatize space ventures. Go Congress!!!

Re:End of another domestic market

[Loco3KGT]

Jesus. Some /.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.

Implying that this is going to destroy the domestic satellite market? You're an idiot. Seriously.

Lets look at this. Government wants to protect data that protects its soldiers and 'operations'. Solution? They go to satellite corps and say "We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse." And they *OVERPAY* them to not distribute or sometimes even take photos.

That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY.

When the government isn't doing this, they're back to on their own and competing.

The government has been doing this for *DECADES*. And you know what? American companies still have satellites taking photos! LIKE OMG. It's freaking amazing how when a company gets paid insane margins to do something that they manage to survive.

The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is: the images the government buys can't be made public, ever. That's a serious concern and killer of our right and power to audit our government.

BTW, you can bet your sweetass we do these same deals with foreign companies.

Re:End of another domestic market

[peragrin]

Um There goes weather images and maps, Next thing the US goverment is going to tun off GPS again as well.

People rely on both of those techs, very much. Without them we will fall behind really fast.

Weather is done by, Radar, sat. images, and stations all over the place. You can't track a hurricane if you can't see it coming because radar is only good for a few hundred miles.

Re:End of another domestic market

[pavon]

I read the text of the bill (linked from the article), and I don't see anything in there about about banning privately owned satellites from selling their images to whomever they want. All this bill says is that the government does not have to release images that it has to the public. So no this will have zero effect on the private market of satellite imagery whatsover, unless every satalite owner decides out of their own free will to sign an exclusive agreement with the government. I don't know where the submitter or article got that from.

The important questions are how this affects our rights, whether it will improve security, and which outweighs the other. I'm still thinking about that.

Re:End of another domestic market

[Loco3KGT]

" (B) are prohibited from sale to customers other than the United States Government and its affiliated users under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.); and"

Isn't the National Weather Service.... a part of the government?

Re:End of another domestic market

[myowntrueself]

"Some /.'ers just love to smash anything the government does."

Yeah its like shooting fish in a barrel!

Re:End of another domestic market

[Rakshasa Taisab]

And they *OVERPAY* them to not distribute or sometimes even take photos.

There was a story a while back about the US military forgetting to tell the satellite imaging companies not to take pictures of Afganistan. Because they were late they had to pay to get those pictures of the market.

This does suggest that you are wrong. AFAIK whenever the US military doesn't want any private companies looking, they just need to say so. Yeah... i guess you *could* call it an offer they can't refuse.

Re:End of another domestic market

[dbitch]

Here's the problem. How many privately owned satillites are there that can do "land sensing"? Not many. LANDSAT, GOES, all the important ones are govt owned. So that's a Bad Idea.

Re:End of another domestic market

[mickwd]

".....the owner/operators uuof foreign imagery services will profit enormously as US customers procure data from an open, unfettered market abroad".

But look what some in your government have planned for the rest of the world (including your allies (while you still have some, that is)): 'Negation'.

Re:End of another domestic market

[zangdesign]

Some /.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.

Because they so frequently get it wrong, maybe?

Seriously, though - the effect of this law depends on whether or not the government can completely replace the funds lost due to commercial sales on some imagery being curtailed AND whether or not Euro-providers step up to the plate.

Which I bet they will - they'd be stupid not to.

Re:End of another domestic market

[maximilln]

Government wants to protect data

It's always for our protection.

That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY

Great. Another taxpayer funded pyramid scheme. Another way for you and I to subsidize some businessman that we've never met who happens to have a lobbying buddy in Washington.

The government has been doing this for *DECADES*

And not just in the satellite industry. My pocketbook is pleading for this crap to stop.

The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is:

Lobbying groups get Congress to steal our tax money, again, as usual?

Re:End of another domestic market

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me know when cable starts carrying the National Weather Service channel.

Re:End of another domestic market

[Jim Starx]

They aren't the only people in the buisness.

Re:End of another domestic market

[jcr]

Some /.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.

No, just the stupid and evil things it does.

Oh, wait...

-jcr

Re:End of another domestic market

[Jaysyn]

My God we've gotten arrogant, haven't we.

Jaysyn

Re:End of another domestic market

[ksheff]

The real question is then: Is the data used to create the weather maps fall in the category that is prohibited for sale? Given the resolution of those images, I would say no. Remember, the US Federal Govt also sells a lot of this data to other governmental agencies and individuals. It archives petabytes of this stuff for that purpose. The article and submitter are overreacting.

Re:End of another domestic market

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is to say that those foreign imagery services don't already have similar licensing agreements?

Re:End of another domestic market

[rpj1288]

Of course, the solution to preventing these photos from completely evaporating is find out in advance which ones are going to become secret, and buy them, or get a copy of them. Of course, finding out in advance which ones to get is a problem... If you were really ambitiuos with a lot of money you could buy all of them, but that is beyond the average slashdotter I think.

Re:End of another domestic market

[torpor]

what a load of crap.

publish everything to everyone, and you won't need to be keeping secrets in the first place.

and then make peace, not war!

Re:End of another domestic market

[Anonymous Coward]

The important questions are how this affects our rights, whether it will improve security, and which outweighs the other. I'm still thinking about that.

The government already has the ability to decline any Freedom Of Information Act request on the grounds of national security. The proposed legislation does nothing to improve the nation's security.

Re:End of another domestic market

[tumbaumba]

Great. Another taxpayer funded pyramid scheme. Another way for you and I to subsidize some businessman that we've never met who happens to have a lobbying buddy in Washington.

Doesn't sound like socialism, which people tend to decry here in US and yet will gladly take money from the government. Look at Halliburton for example is that really a private company or socialist paradise for executives?

Re:End of another domestic market

[Analogy Man]

Combining a few news stories from the last months...

So I can be secretly held (shadow detainees)

in a secret facility (hide and seek from Red Cross)

awaiting my secret trial (military courts for civilian American and foreign nationals)

for breaking a secret law (recent slashdot)

for looking at a secret map (how do we know which ones are OK?)

derived from secret satellite data (that was formerly readily available).

Yes I suppose us Slashdoters are paranoid. If freedom is relative as the Chinese government once professed, maybe we are making the rest of the world a free and democratic society by moving the often referenced "America as a model for a free society" to a police state of Orwellian proportions. Kind of a perverse way of liberating the world isn't it?

Re:End of another domestic market

[Gopal.V]

Imaginary conversation from the pentagon :-
You could classify those photos but then Jorge here wants a peice out of the pie. Why not siphon out a few millions for "National Security" for them photos ?. Oh, and if you don't we're going to have to send those photos. After all we've got place food on the table , don't we ? *grin*.

Looks almost like a perfect case of corruption , collusion with a hint of blackmail?.

Re:End of another domestic market

[Anonymous Coward]

to make the war turn to peace you must realize one thing. there is no peace.

Re:End of another domestic market

[Cat_Byte]

Bush needs to go down to that agency wearing his chaps & bust some heads. Treaty busting? wtf?

Re:End of another domestic market

[Alphtoo]

Good post, but we do have one more thing to bitch about: when the government "overpays" to acquire these images (or anything else) they are doing so with OUR money. I won't conclude that the plan itself is bad, but negative points must be considered. And any time our government uses our money to limit our access to information I'd call that a negative point. The question is, is it justified?

Re:End of another domestic market

[Anonymous Coward]

That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY.

Gotta love this:

1. Launch a 4" tube satellite that can only take pics of Washington DC or some sensitive city

2. Get paid to NOT take pictures

3. Profit!!

Wonder if they'll pay me to not even launch such a satellite. [...walking to postbox to get this week's check...]

Re:End of another domestic market

[Loco3KGT]

Lobbying groups get Congress to steal our tax money, again, as usual?/i

Democrats have been doing this forever. Except they give it to people who haven't done anything to earn it.

Atleast when companies get the money it's handed back out in either salaries or stock dividends.

Terraserver

[jayratch]

Mandatory link

So... MS perhaps won't be happy about this... or do they care

Re:Terraserver

[Anonymous Coward]

terraserver isn't satellite, it's aerial photographs

Re:Terraserver

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been a part of a froup conducting a medical/epidemiologic study where we needed to verify the data provided on the Long & Lat of each site, and during the past few weeks, I had tons of trouble and conflicting results when comparing the results from the specified sites, MapQuest and the Terraserver. It sucks when you are working at 2AM trying to make sense of all that. I later noticed that the Terraserver was giving me different images for the same Long & Lat each day! I was able to find a site located outside the US which gave me consistent results.

I anticipated that to some post 9/11 Home-land stuff. I will not post the other site so that they don't mess that one too. Whatever

Re:Terraserver

[Anonymous Coward]

There was once upon a time that Terraserver DID use satelite photos, if they don't now.

They were provided by one of the russian 3 meter birds.

Already Done

[CatDogLordOfTheRoot]

If you put in the exact address of government buildings in TerraServ's Satellite/Urban pictures they are blacked out. Even though you can put in a relevant location and pan to what is blacked out. =o

Re:Already Done

[zrail]

If you go here it appears that the roofs of the whitehouse and the two executive office buildings are already blurred out.

Re:Already Done

[Tongo]

I dont' think this is all that big of a deal. Since it is just the outline of the building that is blacked out, or the region right around the building that is blurred, I think this would fall into the same category of not releasing the blueprints to the White House. Knowing the layout of the rooftops of these building may or may not be of use to terrorists, but I would hazard to guess that it may be.

Re:Already Done

[makomk]

This reminds me of the way Ordinace Survey maps of the UK (Ordinace Survey maps being the standard UK maps used by walkers, etc.) used to have military installations marked as empty spaces during the Cold War. I always wondered if the USSR just looked for unmapped buildings.

Re:Already Done

[Cat_Byte]

Its a cardboard decoy like in Blazing Saddles. Don't you see it?

Okee.

[Retep Vosnul]

So now there is just the little thing of "redesigning the surface of the earth" and the USA will have a stronghold on all geographic data.

( not to mention the confused terrorists ).

Cryptome

[Threni]

I'm sure there'll be plenty of commercial ones providing the data!

http://cryptome.org/gates-eyeball.htm
http://cr yptome.org/dcgas/dcgas-eyeball.htm
http://cryptom e.org/kumsc-eyeball.htm
http://cryptome.org/dncpe n-eyeball.htm
http://cryptome.org/dcbnt/dcbnt-eye ball.htm
http://cryptome.org/fleet-eyeball.htm
h ttp://cryptome.org/whrez/whrez-eyeball.htm

So just dont sell to the govt?

[doormat]

It only seems to apply to images the government buys. Its like they legislating exclusivity agreements, as well as revoking FOIA on this data. If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[bs_testability]

with this in place I can't imagine the govt actually offering you a choice as to whether or not to sell...

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[minion]

It only seems to apply to images the government buys. Its like they legislating exclusivity agreements, as well as revoking FOIA on this data. If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.

Noo. Way!!! Slashdot readers not reading the article and jumping to conclusions? Perhaps we need a "Jumping to Conclusions Mat"?

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[Dyolf Knip]

Easy. They'll just pass another law saying that you can't refuse to sell to the guvmint. Gives them total control over any piece of satellite info they want.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[CSG_SurferDude]

You know, I have to agree with you. I just don't see how this will "turn off the spigot", as it seems to just apply to things that The Government buys being exempt from FOI act.

Too many folks just aren't reading the article again (What else is new, this is /. afterall)

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[cshotton]

The problem is that the US Government is far and away the largest consumer of satellite imagery from private sources. So it probably wouldn't be a viable business model to shut off your largest customer. In fact, the government probably loves this proposal because it'll allow them to set requirements on private space ventures if the businesses want the government as a customer. Since it seems to be an all or nothing proposition (i.e., you either sell everything to the US Gov't, or you try to make your way in the commercial marketplace), it's likely that US businesses will opt for the former. The alternative is to try and shop the imagery data to foreign governments and there are already all sorts of limitations on exporting that data abroad. The humor in all this is that there is a direct parallel to the whole RIAA/MPAA fiasco. Here is the government trying to regulate access to data that wants to be free and creating an artificial economy and business model that preserves the status quo and stifles innovation. Anyone see a trend here?

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[kfg]

It only seems to apply to images the government buys.

Since the Freedom of Information Act only applies to the government, one would think.

If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.

It wouldn't. In fact, such would be unconstitutional prior restraint, which the Freedom of Information Act has no power to effect, as per above.

This is only about what information a citizen has a right to obtain directly from the government, not censorship of what information he might obtain from some other source.

KFG

KFG

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[glass_window]

The alternative is to try and shop the imagery data to foreign governments and there are already all sorts of limitations on exporting that data abroad.

Why bother when you can just set up shop overseas? The space industry seems to be doing well over in Israel, and India seems to be doing a good job at scooping up all our outsourcing desires, so when you hinder business, if they're smart they just go somewhere more friendly.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[cynic10508]

It wouldn't. In fact, such would be unconstitutional prior restraint, which the Freedom of Information Act has no power to effect, as per above. This is only about what information a citizen has a right to obtain directly from the government, not censorship of what information he might obtain from some other source.

Thank you for helping clear that up. I thought that was the case as I RTFA and at no point took away the idea that the government was going to censor all satellite data, but rather just not give away their own for free.

As a corollary: Wouldn't this rather boost private satellite imaging if news stations were forced to gather their own images instead of just copying whatever the U.S. government has on file?

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[kfg]

As a corollary: Wouldn't this rather boost private satellite imaging if news stations were forced to gather their own images instead of just copying whatever the U.S. government has on file?

It might, although the affect there might be limited. You have to look at the function of this change to the act. What and whom does it protect?

The government, of course, is going to spin it as necessary to maintain security in pursuing the war on terrorism. Even just a couple minutes of thought can peirce that bullshit. The Freedom of Information Act already has enough wiggle room to delay releasing documents for years. If they're really uptight about stuff they can make the submiter sue for the information, delaying release a decade or more, by which time the documents will no longer have any relevance to ongoing operations.

No, this change to the act is to protect our own government and its members from public censure.

You won't be able to go back to the record and show the pictures that the goverment was looking at when they said they had proof of WMD in Iraq and similar cases, nor will you be able to rely on such sources to show where our own government actually had troops and facilities (perhaps contrary to their claims) at a given time.

Of course this only applies to documents that the government has in its files. It will certainly continue to release the images to the press that it wishes the press to publish, and the majority of the press will simply eat it up and publish as expected. No new source necessary.

So it becomes an issue of finding enough Daniel Ellsbergs, who, under current law, could simply be given a free vacation in Cuba for suspicion of aiding and abetting terrorist activities.

KFG

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[maximilln]

It only seems to apply to images the government buys

Which means it's only a taxpayer subsidized pyramid scheme for those CEOs who know lobbyists in Washington. If there was ever going to be a competitive market, we'll know right quick which stock market winner our taxpayer dollars is subsidizing.

Hmmmmm... do I remember this happening in the software industry...?

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that if no private individual/media outlet/whatever can use any of the images that are sold to the government, and can't use images from any COMPANY that sells to the government, then all of the media outlets, etc, will be looking for an alternate source.

So if you quit selling to the government and become that alternate source, then you'll scoop up all the private business from every other imagery shop, thus providing a viable business plan.

The trick, then, is to be the first and only.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[hackstraw]

Its like they legislating exclusivity agreements, as well as revoking FOIA on this data.

I don't get the FOIA. From what I understand, we can't get jack from the government. At most you will get a poor quality photocopy of some useless document that has every other word blacked out.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my understanding of how generous our government is with _our_ information. We paid for it, I believe we are entitled to read it, at least after some set period of time.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[glrotate]

You know he actually could have made quite a bit of money selling the mat to the /. crowd. Maybe he wasn't such a loser.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[j_w_d]

Actually, the way the Gov't works, they may turn around and tell you that your imagery includes areas of sensitive nature. You are offered the choice of handing that data over on threat of pain, or the level of resolution at which you can release the data may be legally limited.

For instance, no U.S. civilian can legally acquire high resolution imagery of any part of the nation of Israel. The maximum resolution legally available is either one or two meters (two I believe). This limitation is inconvenient for research, but generally the Israelis are more accomodating than our own dear feds. The explicit rationale for this limitation has never been explained and "security" hides so many sins, it is ridiculous to speculate. Protecting Israel from US civilians has never seemed like a reasonable justification.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have troops everywhere. It doesn't matter what they claim, even if you prove them wrong, what are you going to do? "It was a secret operation we were doing there, for the ongoing war on terrorism." That's all you'll here, and there's nothing you can do about it. Best just to forget about it, they want you to care, just play dead, general apathy is what will take down the system, not any sort of passion.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[Alex]

"Jumping to Conclusions Mat"?

Perhaps the only Olympic sport a slashdot reader could ever hope to win ?

Alex

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[gotan]

My interpretation is, that you just can't get at the satelite pictures via FOIA. That might even be a good thing for those who wish to market the same picture commercially: they don't have to compete with images they sold to the government and that were published via FOIA.

OTOH the american citizens already paid for those pictures with their taxes.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt?

[aminorex]

> Why did WTC 7 collapse?

According to Larry Silverstein, he ordered it "pulled", i.e. a controlled demolition.

It was pulled less than 8 hours after 1 & 2
came down. Analysis, design, and placement of
explosives for a controlled demolition of a tall
building typically take at least a month. Thus
it is sensible to conclude that demolition charges
were placed in WTC 7 in advance. This raises the
question: Were there also demolition charges in
place in WTC 1 and 2?

Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[MrMojado]

Why not instead make this only enforceable during wartime? The government would have to pay to access the streams so providers don't lose out, and the guys with mapping projects could still get their lower resolution images.

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[zvoid]

Because it appears that will be "wartime" for a very long time?

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[Dyolf Knip]

War on Drugs
War on Terror
War on Poverty
War on Internet Piracy
...

What exactly does 'only during wartime' mean these days?

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[Elledan]

Didn't you get the memo?

The US is at war right now. The US has always been at war.

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[Mateito]

Why not instead make this only enforceable during wartime?

Because there is enough conflict going on around the world that the government can declare "wartime" pretty well whenever it feels like it.

Clintons bombing of the former Yugoslavia was done without a declaration of war, as was Bush's attack on Afghanistan (despite the events of 9/11/2001, there wasn't a formal declaration of war by either side)

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[gwbuhl]

War on drugs, war on terror, war in Iraq, war in Afgahistan. Heck, we're still at war with North Korea. Is there any time in the near future that could not be classified as "during wartime" for the US?

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[kalidasa]

But how do you define "wartime?" IIRC, we haven't declared a war since 1941.

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Difference between "war" (as in "war on drugs") and "operation" ("operation Iraqi 'freedom'") is that in "operation" there are clearly marked sides fighting, actual soldiers soldiers involved and so on. In "war" there aren't; these are just big smoke screens, and word "war" is just used to spice up a rather normal police operations.

Orwell's phrases are finally becoming meaningful, albeit slightly mutilated (instead of "war is peace" it's "war is operation and vice versa").

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[uid8472]

We have always been at war with Oceania.

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[jc42]

I remember noticing that the phrase "War on Poverty" disappeared very quickly and quietly when people started asking "Where do I go to surrender?"

We need something equally clever for the "War on Terror" (or the "War on Terra" as they pronounce it here in New England ;-).

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[Drishmung]

Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.</ob1984>

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[meadowsp]

Really? I thought he was called Osama.

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals.

[satans_advocate]

But how do you define "wartime?" IIRC, we haven't declared a war since 1941.

The wartime powers act was never revoked, so technically, the US has been at war since 1941.

Does this include terraserver, and more...

[aardwolf204]

Would this include the data from USGS at the Terraserver? If not what satelite pictures are available to us citicens, and where can I get a 72" poster of my home town before it becomes *illegal*. I was just thinking about FOIA a few minutes ago while I was reading comments on the Michael Moore article, I guess I better get what I can before I cant. Now if I could only find a notary(sp?).

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[mgs1000]

Terraservier doesn't have satellite images, it has aerial photographs.

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[aardwolf204]

Thought it was a mixture of both. I stand corrected. Still a nifty site either way, and almost works in mozilla.

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try: http://www.spaceimaging.com

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Go there, pick the street address option. Type in "1600 Pensalvania Ave" and choose Washington and D.C. Zoom out twice and pan down once. I think they're affected.

Here (do your own damn cut and pasting):

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/addressimage.as px ?t=4&s=10&lon=-77.0355056024371&lat=38.89695283651 18&alon=-77.03551116&alat=38.89868547&w=1&ref=A%7c 1600+Pennsylvania+Ave+NW%2c+Washington%2c+DC+20005

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[4of12]

here can I get a 72" poster of my home town before it becomes *illegal*.

Fuggedaboutit.

The view of the backyard where that chick sunbathes is all pixelated.

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[johnmckeon]

>Terraservier doesn't have satellite images, it >has aerial photographs.

As I read the article, I wondered if aerial photos would suffer the same fate in the future. Quite a bit of the GIS work I do uses these, and it seems like terrorists would have more use for aerial photos rather than the satellite ones.

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[ticklemeozmo]

I guess I better get what I can before I cant.

Bob Thaves (creator of the 'Frank and Ernest' comic strip) had a bit to say on this issue.

http://www.comics.com/comics/franknernest/archive/ images/franknernest2004081525307.jpg

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Terraserver already blanks the "good stuff." No Area 51 ;-)

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[wskellenger]

Wouldn't a satellite image be an aerial photograph?

Secondly, as I found this post by searching for "terra" (I knew someone would've asked about this already!)... What can be done to stop what's in motion already?

I love being able to access such photos for use with programs like Viking.

Is there something that we can do to stop the process, or should we sit around and bitch about it?

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[Forbman]

It did a few years ago have a bunch of Ikonos sat photographs (where the USGS did not have any imagery).

What is kind of interesting now is that Terraserver has 1-meter resolution shots. Aerial, Satellite, whatever. It's all the same, really.

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I supposed to see something besides the memorial? Interesting though, tops of buildings have been blurred out.

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more...

[Ed_1024]

Simple. Just wait for allofusa.com to start up in Russia...

Why?

[BFaucet]

I don't understand the reasoning behind this. I can think of a couple of reasons maybe, but nothing to justify such a broad swoop.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Re:Why?

[fishbowl]

> I don't understand the reasoning behind this.

It's the same as the reasoning behind all other current US policy:

Because they *CAN*, and nobody will lift a finger to stop them.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

We could tell you why we're doing this, but since we don't have to tell you, we won't.

Re:Why?

[Dhaos]

Well, that depends on how large and pointy your tinfoil hat is, now doesn't it?

Ostensibly, they're probably doing this as a counter-terrorism effort--after all, you could certainly glean a lot from such imagery, such as what areas would make good targets.

Of course, a good topographic map would provide most of the same "tactical" information...

Now, to the tinfoil-- an earlier poster mentioned that the press uses a lot of this information in its everyday operation. Certainly by restricting it, you could hide your Scary Government Project! To go further, the original poster suggests that all maps could be subject to such censoring- meaning new maps would have to be based off of old ones, combined with old-fashioned surveying.

Of course...if the government built something and didn't want you to know about it...and they used this act to keep it off of the maps...

0_o

(Note: I'm sort of being facetious. I'm not really a conspiracy nut, I swear.)

Re:Why?

[multipartmixed]

> Anyone care to enlighten me?

Sure.

It's a general, carte-blanche method for the government to hide information from the public, without the public really being aware that that is, in fact, what the legislation is for.

Here's how it works: A government official does something illegal.. like buying drugs, trading arms for hostages, that sort of thing. Then, he writes up what he did on a computer, and prints it out in a big font, and leaves the printout on the roof of the Whitehouse (or other skyward facing area) when he knows a satellite will be overhead.

Now, the satellite takes pictures of the incriminating evidence, and -- voila! It, and anything related to it, is no longer available via FOIA requests.

Brilliant!

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

So would driving around public streets or picking up any recent DeLorme CD with all the major public interest areas highlighted in red.

Oh no, now the big bad government is going to censor street maps and make roads "state secrets". Gee, didn't the Soviet Union do that? Look what happened to them.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

What I forgot to specify in my other post is that the only thing this protects is the government doing bad things in places Joe Citizen can't get to, like Area 51, or any high security military installation, or say, downtown Baghdad.

Re:Why?

[maximilln]

It's a general, carte-blanche method for the government to hide information from the public

I don't even buy the tin-foil anymore. It's just a way for CEOs with lobbyists in Washington to have another excuse to subsidize their profits with taxpayer dollars.

1. Offer "sensitive" satellite pictures
2. Talk with lobbyists
3. Charge the taxpayers enormous prices
4. PROFIT!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

British goverment does the same stupid crap - they make the addresses of certain buildings official secrets, even when they're 600ft tall.

Huh?

[Overzeetop]

Time to burn some Karma...

So, let me get this straight: Terrorists might be able to use satellite imagery to plan an armed assault on some target in the US. The response is to limit 1st amendment rights, but to leave 2nd amendment rights unchanged.

I guess it just depends on who's slippin' you the bills.

Re:Huh?

[rokzy]

agreed, it's very strange that there hasn't been a single change to 2nd ammendment.

is this because the law is perfect already? do the current measures already prevent suspected terrorists buying grenade launchers?

I can't remember the Simpsons quote verbatim but something like:

Gun shop: "lets see, you've been arrested, have spent time in a mental institution, have severe alcohol problems..."

Homer: "d'oh!"

Gun shop: "don't worry, that only limits you to 3 handguns"

Re:Huh?

[JPelorat]

Wtf? Not a single change? That must be some good crack you have.

We have the FFA of 1933, the NFA of 1968, and more bans/regulations in 1986, 1989, 1994 (which is about to go away, thankfully). And there's probably more.

Destructive devices (grenades, explosives, large-bore weapons) and full-autos have been heavily regulated and restricted since the 30's. So good luck buying a functional grenade launcher or ammunition for it in the US, no matter who you are.

Re:Huh?

[smclean]

There hasn't been a change to *any* amendment in the bill of rights. I think that any politician considering trying to change the bill of rights knows that the public has a great sentiment towards it, and it would be a bad thing politically to be 'the guy who said the founding fathers were wrong'.

Besides all that, the 2nd amendment is so vague that laws easily could be (and are) made to limit what defines 'the right to bear arms'. Anyway, arguments on domestic issues aside, guns purchased legitimately in America are not the terrorists biggest source of arms.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure that it is because of that, because terrorist can not buy a map of a city where they want to hit, or even go there and see it in first person (to check things that changed since the maps or the images were done)
Note: This only applies if the terrorists are geeks!

Re:Huh?

[maximilln]

So, let me get this straight: Terrorists

For certain I thought you were going to tie in the children.

Can we please lay off the buzzword bandwagon?

Re:Huh?

[phayes]

The only insightful sentance in the parent post is that there are way too many stupid people in the world. Among them are those who cannot distinguish between their first amendment rights & the FOIA.
The First amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The FOIA on the other hand:
... provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, of access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof) are protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions ... The basic purpose of [the] FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.

The FOIA already includes exceptions for law enforcement & privacy issues. The current admin is trying to add Sat pictures to this list to avoid making Govt bought Sat pics available for the price of a FOIA query & thus helping potential terrorists. Anyone who needs the pics can still always go directly to SPOT & buy the pictures.
The 1st amendment & the FOIA have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Moderators, how is this Insightful?

Re:Huh?

[Kreigaffe]

O what woeful mistakes we make when first we speak, and then we think This is just preventing you from getting from the gov't for free what you should have to pay for :p Not limiting your 1st Amendment rights in any way, and that 2nd Amendment jab is wwwaaaaayyy out in left field. So far out in fact, your post is barely comprehensable.

Re:Huh?

[timshea]

The FOIA already includes exceptions for law enforcement & privacy issues. The current admin is trying to add Sat pictures to this list to avoid making Govt bought Sat pics available for the price of a FOIA query & thus helping potential terrorists.

Our government bought it. It belongs to us.

Re:Huh?

[phayes]

Oh, go read the Bill of Rights, will you? The government also has personal information on you as well (credit rating, criminal record, health status, etc). In no manner is their refusal to give this data to whoever asks for it related to anyones freedom of speech. It's a false premise, give it up. Falsely crying wolf like this is more of a danger to the 1st amendment as people will become apathetic and not react should a real threat emerge.

bullcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

This will *not* impact commercial remote sensing companies. In fact, it might help them: by forcing value added distributors to go to the source and not getting it cheap from Uncle Sam. Regardless, these commercial "pictures from space" companies are not profitable and will never pay off their debts. These firms are misguided swindles designed to lower the losses by commercializing selling some of the spy satillite images. USA, India, China, Israel, France: Everyone of them will never recover their investments by commerical sales.

There are lots of issues concerning FOIA and images from space but "hurting commerical ventures" is bogus.

Re:bullcorn

[robsimmon]

Not to mention that the hurricane images referred to in the original article are from government, not commercial satellites.

You might be able to see the hurricanes heading for Florida. Maybe. But just about all other commercial satellite imagery could be put off-limits

Figures

[AKAImBatman]

See, this is what happens when one semi-stable entrepreneur goes and tries to blow the lid off of the entire Stargate program. Now the government is going to make sure that no one ever sees a satellite photo of the X-302 or X-303 (much less Anubis's invasion fleet)! *grumble* ;-)

On a serious note, this is a very scary thing. The whole point of having NASA and a commercial space program, is that the general knowledge of all mankind is supposed to be increasing. How are we supposed to enhance our knowledge if it's kept secret?

Re:Figures

[Xshare]

On that note, do you think Bill Gates is a member of The Trust?

Another piece of horseshit from Congress..

[brxndxn]

THERE'S MORE: "The Justice Department has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane," the Washington Post reports.


They're probby hoping the terrorists won't think of whatever ingenius exploitation of satellite images that they themselves thought first.. Instead, they should publicize the arguments and then fix the exploit. Otherwise, the government will end up like Microsoft and be forced to fix the exploit after it has been exploited.

Perhaps another reason they feel it is necessary to shove shit down the throat of the public is that the public is becoming too powerful! The public is used to seeing satellite images. Now, they must taketh away?

Something tells me this will just make bitorrent stronger.. You'll have big media even linking to torrents. "Hurricane Jeebus is ravaging Florida. Click here for satellite torrent link."

Re:Another piece of horseshit from Congress..

[Darthmalt]

They're probby hoping the terrorists won't think of whatever ingenius exploitation of satellite images that they themselves thought first.. Instead, they should publicize the arguments and then fix the exploit. Otherwise, the government will end up like Microsoft and be forced to fix the exploit after it has been exploited I remember reading somewhere that captured al qaeda had said that they had originally dismissed chemica weapons as being to difficult to obtain/ workwith. It was only after the newsmedia kept going on about how easy it was to get chemical weapons that they started looking at them.

eye in the sky

[Doc Ruby]

"These days, it's all secrecy, and no privacy."
- The Rolling Stones, "Fingerprint File", _It's Only Rock and Roll_

Re:eye in the sky

[thelexx]

_Electric Eye_ - Judas Priest

Up here in space
I'm looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do

You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Always in focus
You can't feel my stare
I zoom into you
You don't know I'm there

I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
There's nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Protected. detective. electric eye

--------

Re:eye in the sky

[Anonymous Coward]

Some more of the lyrics, the Stones were ahead by 30 years:

Ah, yeah, you know we ain't, we ain't talkin' alone
Who's listening? Well I don't really know ....

Yes, uh huh, yeah, but these days it's all secrecy; no privacy
Shoot first, that' s right... you know
Bye bye. Who's listening?
Right now somebody is listening to ... you
Keeping their eyes peeled on ... you
Mmm, mmm, what a price, what a price to pay
All right. Good night, sleep tight

What a price to pay, indeed!

Re:eye in the sky

[Doc Ruby]

Actually, with the FBI surveillence of people against Nixon's government, like John Lennon, Jagger was right on time. What's extremely creepy is how nothing has changed, despite widespread knowledge of these abuses, and their purely political nature, despite their undermining actual national security. If rock lyrics can't change cultural values of democratic institutions, what can?

Re:eye in the sky

[ported33]

Revolution? (Patiently waiting for a knock at my door...)

These laws will drive us to Dark Ages!

[ikhalil]

I believe these kinds of laws are going to drive us to the Dark Ages. Later on, they will ban telephones because terrorists can use it to communicate. Then they will ban electricity because terrorists use it in their everyday activity. Afterwards food will be banned too!

Re:These laws will drive us to Dark Ages!

[StalinsNotDead]

What about semaphore flags and Slashdot?

Re:Google Invites

[Anonymous Coward]

how do you work out the URL instead of the usual invite procedure?

Way to go Bush Administration

[Anonymous Coward]

If you people let Bush stay in Office for a second term, you damned well deserve the Police State that you're gonna get.

-- Proud to be Canadian. Sickened to be so close to the potential high tech equivelant of the USSR.

Re:Way to go Bush Administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Well sir, you got rated a troll for speaking what is quite possibly the truth. A huge number of people are in a collective state of denial and cannot even stand numbers for fear of for fear of disturbing their collective psychosis.

Re:Way to go Bush Administration

[BgJonson79]

I'd say it's pretty horrible that a "proud Canadian" would believe anybody deserves a "Police State."

Re:Way to go Bush Administration

[cluckshot]

I couldn't agree more with you regards the Police State and I live in the USA. I just wish there was some way not to spread it around like is going to happen!

For those in the USA who cannot see very well look closely at what the Bush Administration is DOING!

They are refusing to enforce decent Immigration Laws and refusing to remove illegal aliens saying it is good for the economy. On 911 we lost $100 plus billion to some illegal aliens the cost of sweeping them up is cheap!

They are spending our defense dollars overseas but not in our country!

They are refusing to assent to the decent requests of the citizens for relief from a trade war leveled by the US Government against its own citizens. (High Taxes against untaxed inports)

They are cranking down on security on such things as Sat Photos but they export all of our critical super tech like NBFe magnets for the better motors, new lasers, new partical beams, Isotopic separtion(atomic weapons) and for antigravity and space flight research. (This is the fancy new Chinese subs!)

I could list the quotes of the labor secy or the council on economic advisors who are so arrogant that they cannot figure out that there will be no beans or bullets for their wars if Americans are not working.

Hurricane 'W' continues to churn grinding US Freedom down.

I think someone is overreacting

[Gorm the DBA]

Uhh...I *think* someone is overreacting...

From the site: The committee recommends a provision that would exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), (section 552 of title 5, United States Code), data that are collected by land remote sensing and are prohibited from sale to customers other than the United States and its affiliated users under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, (section 5601 et seq. of title 15, United States Code).. The exemption would also include any imagery and other product that is derived from such data. State and local laws mandating disclosure by a State or local government would be preempted. (Bold emphasis mine)

So this would appear to mean that only some subset of stuff, which is prohibited from sale currently, would be removed from FOIA.

What, exactly, this is I do not know, but it wouldn't surprise me if this means "When the military buys a commercial satellite pass over a suspected terrorist camp and forbids the satellite company from reselling the image (which seems reasonable, otherwise there would be a huge market in 'see what the DoD is taking pictures of' industry), no one can file a FOIA request to access that image".

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[javaxman]

uh, I'm not so sure about that.

Isn't the point that anything that could even *remotely* be considered to be related to national security already is exempt from FOIA requests?

Please enlighten me if this exemption somehow doesn't apply to data from commercial satellite providers already; I could be wrong. But the point of TFA does seem to be that the recommendation is over-reaching because it would cut off access to public information without justification.

Maybe the proposal just needs an "iff such information being available could threaten national security" cop-out, er I mean clarification ?

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[abb3w]

From what you quote, it sounds like that they want to exempt things like photos of Area 51 from FOIA-- but that's probably not what they're actually doing. Interestingly, in 15 USC 82 I see no prohibitions of sale of any data to anyone, but I may have missed it. Or that part of the law may be classified, and exempt from FOIA requests. =)

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[NaugaHunter]

What, exactly, this is I do not know, but it wouldn't surprise me if this means "When the military buys a commercial satellite pass over a suspected terrorist camp and forbids the satellite company from reselling the image (which seems reasonable, otherwise there would be a huge market in 'see what the DoD is taking pictures of' industry), no one can file a FOIA request to access that image".

Huh. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I read it to mean that footage showing environmental hazards could be removed from the record simply by the government purchasing one copy.

Yes the people thinking this would cut into weather or traffic or whatever are overreacting, but unless it is rewritten to some extent that it is a time delay (e.g. can't be sold for 10 years), then it is a powerful method of covering up information from the American people.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[RodgerDodger]

But classified material is already exempt until the classification expires. What more do they need?

What this is saying is "We have a bunch of pictures that aren't classified in any way, but we won't let you see them".

If there's a problem with the classification rules, then change _those_.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[Vellmont]

When the military buys a commercial satellite pass over a suspected terrorist camp and forbids the satellite company from reselling the image

Your example doesn't apply in any way to this case. Pictures of terrorist training camps would clearly be an issue of national security and the company would already be prohibited from distributing it. The government is already excempt from revealing the photos, as FOIA requests don't apply to anything that compromises national security.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[SoSueMe]

This is the act in question.

It begins:

"The Congress finds and declares the following:

1. The continuous collection and utilization of land remote sensing data from space are of major benefit in studying and understanding human impacts on the global environment, in managing the Earth's natural resources, in carrying out national security functions, and in planning and conducting many other activities of scientific, economic, and social importance."

.

Also interesting:

"15. Development of the remote sensing market and the provision of commercial value-added services based on remote sensing data should remain exclusively the function of the private sector."

.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[grimarr]

You're right, it's not that bad. Although I wish the bill said that the government MAY withhold the requested data, instead of MUST. I think there will sometimes be things that they would be OK with releasing, but this law will now allow them to.

This proposal says that if the govt buy some pics from someone like http://spaceimaging.com/, they CANNOT release it in response to an FOIA request.

It does NOT say that CNN, NBC, Washington Post, or Joe Blow can't buy the data from the same place the govt got it. I seriously doubt that the news organizations rely on FOIA to get their satellite photos -- they can't wait that long. They buy from the source.

The only time journalists really need FOIA is to write a story about what the govt is up to: is the govt abusing its power, or wasting money, etc.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[maximilln]

It does NOT say that CNN, NBC, Washington Post, or Joe Blow can't buy the data from the same place the govt got it

I'm pretty certain that, if the government buys it, they'll ensure that they have a contract for exclusive ownership. None of this licensed for use crap that the rest of us deal with.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[ksheff]

So in other words, if there is a satellite image that according to the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act can only be sold to the US Govt, then someone can't submit a FOIA request and get it for free. It sounds to me like they are closing big loophole and one that should have been addressed in 1992.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[Anonymous Coward]

Pictures of terrorist training camps would clearly be an issue of national security and the company would already be prohibited from distributing it.

That makes no sense.

How do pictures of terrorist training camps hurt national security? The terrorists already know where they are, they trained there! And the absence of those specific photos from what's on sale will permit the terrorists to work out which of their camps the US government knows about.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[Vellmont]

And the absence of those specific photos from what's on sale will permit the terrorists to work out which of their camps the US government knows about.


It would be a matter of national security if the goverment requested a flyby of a training camp to get recent pictures. The knowledge of a recent flyby (an normally not scheduled) flyby of a specific area would alert anyone in that area that someone is awfully interested in it.

A single pictures of an area are one thing, but I'm sure more usefull are a series of photos taken at different times of the day to establish patterns, number of people etc.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[donutello]

No. Re-read the bolded part of the parents post. This only applies to data that is already restricted for sale only to the government.

This doesn't apply to images which would otherwise be legal to sell to the public. The government buying a copy of the image does not make it illegal to sell to the public.

Re:I think someone is overreacting

[danila]

Why exactly does it seem reasonable?

BUt isn't this our money?

[cyberworm]

Would someone explain how they can do this? It's our (the taxpayers) money. Shouldn't we have free and open access to these pictures? I can understand having time delayed pictures in times of war, so that we don't show our hand. But honestly, what good does this really serve? Will I have to pay to get pictures of the earth, that I've already paid for (in taxes)? Well whatever happens, better start hoarding sattalite pictures now fellas.

Re:BUt isn't this our money?

[YouHaveSnail]

Would someone explain how they can do this?

"They" can do whatever the hell they want, unless "we" decide to stop them. You and I, therefore, should hie to the polls on Election Day and cast a vote to remove from office the most secretive administration the US has ever seen.

Re:BUt isn't this our money?

[dr_dank]

Shouldn't we have free and open access to these pictures?

As an experiment, try having "free and open" access to places paid for by our tax dollars (military bases, federal buildings, even parks after dark) and see what kind of reception you get.

Re:BUt isn't this our money?

[cyberworm]

well, that's kinda stretching things a little bit. Having civilian access to those buildings anytime woudl be silly. Theft, espionage, fraud, any number of bad things could happen if that were the case. But the product of their/our ventures shouldn't have to cost us/civillians more money i.e. Pictures of the earth from sattalites bought or sponsored by us. And there is no danger in us having them.

Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil

[ARRRLovin]

Next thing you know, a typical GPS will have to be accurate to +/- 60m and the size of a fridge to fend off would be terrorists.

Re:Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil

[MadHungarian1917]

The GPS data is already degraded to 100M RMS using 'Selective Availability'. SA was disabled during the Clinton Administration so that aviation users could wean themselves off LORAN-C.

The increased accuracy was provided by WAAS which sends it's position which is then used by the GPS receiver to 'correct' its position readings.

For a long time the altitude reading on my GPS units would remain constant but now it jinks around like a weasel on a SAM hunt. Note my GPS units do not have a WAAS receiver so I am dependent on satellite derived data only

Re:Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

give me a GPS with a 1000meter accuracy and i can make you a bomb that will easily take out that target.

Cripes, reducing accuracy only encourages the wacko to make a bigger boom to make sure it get's the target.

Anyone that thinks that innacurate data protect them from anything is a complete and utter moron. (whic describes the entire Executive and legislative branches of the US government.)

Re:Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil

[smclean]

I didn't know you could get altitude data from GPS, are you sure you are not mistaken? My GPS uses a barometric altimeter, why would they bother putting that in if you could just get that data off GPS? Which model of GPS do you have?

Re:Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

GPS recievers naturally calculate two points in 3-d space. They logically assume that one of those points, being in outer space, does not apply to you.

Yes, GPS can be used to calculate altitude. That's why they use it for land surveying also.

Re:Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil

[MadHungarian1917]

GPS receivers calculate the answer to the 3 body problem in calculus based on differential time between the various atomic clocks on the satellites and your receiver.

Basically the NavStar satellites are flying atomic clocks which transmit time and their orbit using the C/A code on the L1 band for the SPS (Standard Positioning Service).
The SPS is subject to intentional degradation or shutdown based on national security requirements. Hence the interest in the Galileo and GLONASS by the EU and the Russian Federation respectively.

There is a PPS or Precise Positioning Service which is transmitted on the L2 band and that is accurate to 3" but is only available to Govt and Military users with the appropriate decryption key of the day.

The reason your GPS has a barometric alitmeter is so that you can get accurate elevation readings irrespective of the status of selective availability and GDOP 'geometric distortion of precision'

Re:Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil

[smclean]

Very informative, thank you.

Re:Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Height data from civilian GPS is usually accurate to about 40m. Selective Availability is still off. Without WAAS (or EGNOS), you can get 4m horizontal accuracy under good reception (many satellites in view).

Oh No! Keep the pictures away from terrorists!!!!

[GreenCrackBaby]

...more like, "We don't want everyone to see what we are doing."

TimeCube!

[autophile]

peter303 writes with a more optimistic story in USA Today " about building and launching a satellite for as little as $65K,", as long as you can squeeze it into a 4 inch-cube.

Of course! Must be Satellite in Cube! Dumbass! Even Time obey Cube! NASA is Stupid for not obey Cube design! Dumbass!

--Rob

Re:TimeCube!

[Dwedit]

How can you quote timecube.com and neglect to include some line about "Educated Stupid"?

Re:TimeCube!

[Anonymous Coward]

That has to be the most stupid website ever.

If he had a point, it was lost in the bad English.

Re:TimeCube!

[Anonymous Coward]

all your timecube are educated stupid1!!

Re:TimeCube!

[Fnkmaster]

I am not allowed to lecture at the word animal
academic institutions, for they fear my wisdom
will expose and indict the pedant hirelings as
betrayers of dumb-ass students - the dung heads
who allow their freedom of speech to be
suppressed without a whimper, unbelieveable.
Word animals will feel the wrath of Cubic curse.

I pretty much think that says it all. Wow, there are some truly schizo people out there.

Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[crush]

During the height of the invasion of Afghanistan the government used taxpayers' money to buy up all the satellite images from the private, commercial satellite Ikonos. This allowed them to avoid the problems if they had just tried to censor it. Now they're trying to censor it straight out. The argument _then_ was that they needed to censor it to protect troop movements -- a valid argument. However there has been no release of this years old data which would allow us to evaluate whether what we were being told at the time was a lie or not.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. The fact that *you're not being allowed to evaluate* whether you were being told a lie means that ... well, figure it out.

Always ask "cui bono?"

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[Mike Hawk]

Because we have no troops left in Afghanistan? Your whole irrational post and its +5 moderations are reason enough not to ever release satellite photos of troop movements. As if the internet crowd is even close to qualified to interpret what they mean.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[crush]

Mike, try to be a little less confrontational and a little more thoughtful. The Ikonos purchases were purchases of satellite imagery that would allow us to evaluate NOW what actually went on in Afghanistan during the invasion years ago.

Whether or not there are US forces present (and I'll bet there are) that has nothing to do with us being able to obtain actual evidence about what happened under the FOIA. That is the purpose of the FOAI.

Unless you can specify exactly what is "irrational" about any post then simply calling it that or referring to "the internet crowd" is the equivalent of pulling your pants down in front of all slashdot readers: it doesn't make you look good and does nothing to advance any debate or understanding.

I would not be able to evaluate the satellite imagery myself, but its release under the FOAI would allow academics and professionals in the field to evaluate it.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[jafac]

Most likeley they're planning on buying up images of the border region between Iran and Iraq.....

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[The One and Only]

Even now, the military has significant interest in keeping secret the specific strategy and tactics they used in the Afghanistan war, so that future enemies will be less able to predict what we'll do on the battlefield. Should it be kept secret? I'm not saying. I'm just saying that there are legitimate arguments to keep this stuff secret.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[ksheff]

There are still about 18000 troops in Afghanistan.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[crush]

That would be the only justification that I can see. But I'm still not satisfied if that is the case. There ought to be a Senate or Congressional committee of elected representatives sworn to secrecy who review whether or not there is some reason for hiding the stuff. This proposal just allows the government to blanket hide whatever they like with no oversight.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[crush]

Probably. But then they'll just go and do a compulsory purchase order as with Ikonos. The exemption of satellite imagery from the FOIA prevents retrospective evaluation by the citizens of whether the government (or certain branches of it) has been up to no good.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[Keebler71]

I can think of a reason right off the top of my head as to why this information shouldn't be made available. Al-Qaeda could (through 3rd parties) obtain the photos or at least the descriptions of photos purchased by the governent. They could compare targets of the sensing with the actual locations of their hideouts and immediately know which of their hideout locations have been likely compromised. With a little analysis, they could possibly correlate their communications with the imagery of particular sites and figure out which communications channels had similarly been compromised. Heck, thats just off the top of my head... imagine what I could come up with if I had been in hiding for 3 years...

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats right. The good ol USA wouldn't want the world to see that they did actually bomb a couple of weddings. Or that their troops did cross "no-go line XX", or that there were no troops massing on border X (right Mr Powell, you sure look bad when people can prove your showing doctored photos to the UN). As mentioned, this stuff isn't real time, so that is not the issue. It is to cover their tracks, and aviod embarrasment down the road. Ever wonder what could be so important that there are still files from WWII that are classified?

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

They could compare targets of the sensing with the actual locations of their hideouts and immediately know which of their hideout locations have been likely compromised. With a little analysis, they could possibly correlate their communications with the imagery of particular sites and figure out which communications channels had similarly been compromised.

Right. Or they could do it the old fashioned way. Any hide out with a bunker buster through the roof is compromised. Any one with AQ or Taliban troops eating mutton and rice, and drinking sweet tea has not been compromised.

Besides, we are talking about private images, taken by private companies, not about NSA shots of potential targets. Do you think Iconos has access to the target list, so they know what to shoot images of? Do you think that Iconos has access to the information regarding interesting com channels that need a closer look? Get real. It is exactly this point that makes it all so suspicious. There is NO reason that random shots of any country should be hidden from pulic view.

If these suggestions of yours really came from the top of your head, I would suggest having it looked at. Your insight bone might be broken, and at the very least you are having a common sense leak.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[Seanasy]

IKONOS can take a picture of the same area only once every 3 days. What is anyone going to learn about strategy from that?

Asking sincerely.

IKONOS, for anyone who doesn't know, has a max resolution of 1 meter for panchromatic images and 4 meters for blue, green, red and Near IR.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[Seanasy]

On the other hand, they could let Space Imaging sell the data and track who buys it.

Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship.

[The One and Only]

If the troops are encamped, the rough layouts of the encampments can be seen. Logistical networks can be determined. One can watch troop movements over slow, but still appreciable periods of time if images are taken once every three days. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable in military affairs than I can give you better examples.

Ignorance is Strength

[Doc Ruby]

So any info that belongs to the public, whether generated by public equipment or bought by public dollars, is to be secret from the public? But of course it will be available to government contractors, like Halliburton, under no-bid contracts that are also secret.

Redundant reply

[Anonymous Coward]

They use aerial photographs. No satellites involved.

Story Misleading

[rherbert]

I think that the story is misleading. Exempting satellite imagery from the FOIA does NOT mean that commercial companies couldn't sell the imagery to news agencies - you just wouldn't be able to make the government sort through and cough up all the unclassified satellite images that it has bought. I'm guessing that defensetech.org is one of those sites that makes wild paranoid predictions about the military.

Re:Story Misleading

[crush]

There are two problems:

1) nothing should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
2) the government is able to outbid many other concerned parties (eg journalists) and is also in a position to strong-arm the vendors (eg who grants Defense Department contracts, who grants licenses to operate satellites?)

Point 2 means that a duplicitous government that lies about things like the presence of WMDs or the level of civilian casualties or the amount of an area under control will be able to lie without anyone being able to verify or disprove what they say.

Re:Story Misleading

[Dhalka226]

1) nothing should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Hey, cool! I've always wanted to know where every CIA agent in the world was stationed, what name he was going by and where I might be able to find him after business hours. Err... purely for a social visit, you understand.

I would love to be able to FOIA our governments defense plans and publish them to the world. Or to demand the Army tell me exactly how they were going to move in Iraq before they ever went. I'm sure Saddam would have paid a pretty penny.

It would be fun to know the exact specifications of new technology the government may be working on. I wouldn't want the rest of the world to fall behind.

Or... perhaps you should be careful with words like "nothing."

Point 2 means that a duplicitous government that lies about things like the presence of WMDs or the level of civilian casualties or the amount of an area under control will be able to lie without anyone being able to verify or disprove what they say.

By that logic, CNN should be able to buy photos from these satellites right now before any such restriction bill passes, and tell me exactly how many people died. Right? Or have bought it two years ago and said "no, sorry George, our pictures show no WMDs?"

Or more likely, they were just shots at the war in a story they didn't belong.

Re:Story Misleading

[crush]

Re point 1: I actually do believe that nothing should be exempt. I don't believe that the CIA should exist or has any business screwing around in the world, I don't believe that there should be secret technologies developed, I don't believe that there should be a large standing army with "defense plans". Why? Isn't that extreme? No, all of that stuff relies on security through obscurity and as we've seen with the longstanding Israeli moles placed high-up in the DoD, the history of Soviet spies etc. that information leaks all the time. The result is that the only people that this vital information about our lives and governments is hidden from is us: the ordinary citizens. Spies, armies and wars are all the extreme side of large-government and serve mainly to oppress ordinary citizens of all countries.

Having said that I suppose that that viewpoint will appear to "extreme" to many people reading this forum. To them I'd argue that there only ought to be FOIA-restricted data when there is some form of democratic oversight to prevent the government from declaring anything it wants to be a "security risk". The current proposal we're discussing doesn't do that so it's a grave threat to the limited form of democracy now in operation in the US.

Re point 2: CNN, Fox and the rest of the media are mainly outposts of government propaganda. I can't think of a large enough "leftwing" news organization in the US that could stump up enough money to purchase satellite imagery if the government were bidding against them. There are isolated journalists that might be interested in doing so, but most "journalists" are quite happy to retype and regurgitate the lines fed to them by their official sources (whether they're official embedded or not).

Add to this that the "satellite" companies are usually deeply entangled with the military and defense establishments and you won't see them doing much to rock the boat and advertise that they have embarrassing pictures to sell. Otherwise goodbye contracts, goodbye licenses.

These "shots at the war" are completely relevant and pertinent to the story. The war is probably why this story exists.

Re:Story Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think we've established you as a loonie. Moving on...

Re:Story Misleading

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

hey dumbass, as you gleefully move along, give just 2 seconds to the thought that maybe the government is trying to hide information from YOU rather than from the rest of the world ...

move along, there's nothing to see here as we slowly launch '1984' as a reality.

Re:Story Misleading

[qwijibo]

Ask yourself "what if I'm right?".

Maybe the CIA has no business to exist. Maybe they shouldn't be messing with everyone else's affairs.

If we take the high road and get rid of all the cloak and dagger BS, what will change? The public will have more of an opportunity to be informed? The public doesn't seem to give a crap right now. People are happy knowing what little TV tells them they need to know.

What's the flip side of that same coin? Other countries will still play the cloak and dagger game. Just because we stop playing that game doesn't mean that everyone else pulling that crap here will pack up and leave.

And in the end, where does that leave us? If people were better informed, do you think they would take a more active role in making our government one that is of the people, by the people, and for the people?

The people you're trying to help are the same ones who are so happy to act on insufficient information that they *know* that encryption is for drug dealers, pedophiles and terrorists.

Maybe organizations like the CIA are doing good things that I don't know about or understand. I don't want to presume I know everything about what they do any more than I want them to tell me how to write programs.

Is this a recommendation?

[nizo]

peter303 writes with a more optimistic story in USA Today " about building and launching a satellite for as little as $65K,", as long as you can squeeze it into a 4 inch-cube.

Urm how are these stories even related (aside from them both being about satellites)? Are we all supposed to chip in and buy a satellite for taking our own pictures? (Wondering if an X-10 camera plus transmitter will fit into a 4" cube).

Re:Is this a recommendation?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Answer- yes. At one point, a couple of years back, I was fitting an X10 camera plus transmitter into a 2"x6" HO scale railcar- which is about the same idea. (that project ended with the life of my mother-in-law, as it was for use on my father-in-law's layout, which has since fallen into disuse over his two years of grief).

Hmm

[mcc]

Another nail in the coffin of privatize space ventures. Go Congress!!!

I think what you mean is "another nail in the coffin of privatized American space ventures". Anyone in Europe, meanwhile, interested in privatized space ventures would be dancing for joy at news like this; the U.S. congress would have just handed them a market on a silver platter.

Re:Hmm

[xmas2003]

Wonder what I have to do about the satellite pictures of my house - am I OK if they had been taken by European sats, but not OK if from US sats?!?

On a hopefully unrelated note, I noticed the following in my web server logs:
149.101.1.128 - - [07/Sep/2004:08:48:12 -0600] "GET /faq/satellite_photo/ HTTP/1.0" 200 4449 "http://www.terraserver.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (CK-DNJ702R1)"

That IP address resolves to wdcsun28.usdoj.gov ... and the referral of www.terraserver.com is pretty odd too ... and 10 minutes later, the IP address 149.101.1.116 (resolves as wdcsun16.usdoj.gov) looked at the same page ... but so far, no other accesses from 149.101.*.* addresses - have the black helocopters been dispatched?!? ;-)

Re:Hmm

[_ph1ux_]

This brings up a very interesting idea: Havenco.

What if HavenCo was able to expand their foot-print as to be a launch platform for comercial/private satellite ops - with hosted monitoring and data collection storage to boot!

I wonder what their current status is... lemme check - brb..

looks like they are actively seeking clients. And you seem to be able to host anything there - except child porn.... which is fine for all, except a few members of congress.

anyway - imagine if they begin to offer launch and image procurment, storage and hosting.

ya- prolly not till 2036....

Re:Hmm

[juan2074]

You are obviously under investigation. Run for it!

Re:Hmm

[Ayandia]

When you see their IP in your logs, it's already too late to run.

/what's that white van doing in my driveway?

4 inch cube

[kcdoodle]

Sixty-four cubic inches should be enough for ANY satellite!

I live the greatest adventure anyone could wish for. - Tosk the Hunted

But think of the terrorists!

[l0ungeb0y]

Remember, in the war on terror "national security" trumps commen sense every time.

not practical.

[Brigadier]

Thats like telling a vender not to sell to his most reliable customer. No one is their right mind will turn down federal money. What are some of the other uses for satellite imagary weather maps, alta surveys, and other either gov funded or non profit studies.

not the end of the world

[osmethnee]

This would heavily impact news gathering and probably the income of commercial satellite operators - who would only be able to sell to the U.S. Govt.

Of course, the linked article says nothing of the sort. It does say that

maps, reports, and any other unclassified government analyses or communications that are in some way 'derived from' a commercial satellite image would all of a sudden become inaccessible [under the FoIA] ... they would vanish from public view

but doesn't explain how people/organisations are prevented from obtaining such images outside of the FoIA - like, say, purchasing them from the independent sattelite operators.

In short, the end result seems to be that news organisations have to pay market prices for their information, and private satellite operators make a few more sales...

$40,000 for a cubesat

[Marxist Hacker 42]

When we can build a handheld digital camera for less than $500? Heck- I bet with off the shelf parts any competant hardware hacker could build a cubesat for under $2000- Maybe the other $38,000 is the launch fees?

Re:$40,000 for a cubesat

[wowbagger]

So, was your $500 camera's imaging element rad-hard?

No? Hope you like pictures with lots of spurious pixels in them.

Were the microcontrollers rad-hard?

No? Hope you like your sat crashing every five mintes.

Were the batteries rated to go from +100C in the sun to -100C in the shadow? In vacuum?

No? Oh well, with no imaging element and no computer you don't need them anyway.

Was your sat vibration and acceleration rated?

No? Too bad it shook itself apart on launch.

Building space rated hardware IS HARD. Look at the problems Amsat had launching Phase-4D - and they had a HELL of a lot more talent working on it than your average Red Green with his duct taped camcorder.

Re:$40,000 for a cubesat

[WormholeFiend]

plus, if the slashdot crowd pulls together and each /.er throws in a couple of bucks, we could build a cubesat AND pay for the launch, too!

Re:$40,000 for a cubesat

[advocate_one]

no, that excludes launch, that's some $40,000 extra... and for getting a package into space it's incredibly cheap. Remember, you haven't got the economics of scale working in your favour here, you're making very short production runs and you must use components and assembly techniques that will survive the rigours of launch to orbit and also exposure to space. So you'll need access to some testing chambers and a vibration table

Re:$40,000 for a cubesat

[GileadGreene]

Are a Cubesat's imaging elements rad-hard? No. Are the microcontrollers rad-hard? No. Is anything on a Cubesat rad-hard? Not bloody likely! That's how they manage to get the cost down to around $40K - rad-hard parts are expensive. You're a little closer on the batteries, and a lot closer on the testing. Plus there's a complete lack of economies of scale when you're building a one-off item, so parts tend to be more expensive. And you only have one unit to amortize the non-recurring engineering (aka design) costs across. That's mostly where the $40K cost comes from.

Re:$40,000 for a cubesat

[twostar]

Exactly. Our primary cost is paying the students and a few parts. Even though everyone jokes that student time is free time (and it nearly is) we do still get paid a little.

The physical structure and equipment also costs some money. While machining on campus is sometimes an option, we need pretty accurate parts sometimes and even just running board production off site costs a decent amount. Little bits of money here and there adds up.

If you guys really want to build one check out CubeSat.org The standard is there and it's pretty open ended and we're always willing to help get more people into the community. Our primary asset is the community and their willingness to help others.

Re:$40,000 for a cubesat

[eclectro]

Some rad-hard parts are actually normal parts culled from the standard assembly line and tested for their ability to endure extremes. Not all, but some.

Also, you might be able to find some military surplus somewhere that had rad-hard parts and scavenge it for parts.

While it would be difficult to do, it would not be impossible to build space rated hardware. There are a few ham radio satellites that have been built economically.

Blind Spot

[Doc Ruby]

Those satellite images are a loose cannon, recording illegal flights the government would rather keep secret. Like the Iran/Contra CIA/NSC drug/gun flights. Or the 9/13-14/2001 bin Laden family evacuation. Or whatever other secret traffic about which we haven't even heard in our complacent, compliant media.

Re:Blind Spot

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yeah, like Anibus's big pyramid ship attacking the Earth! (see last episode of SG1 in August).

Re:Blind Spot

[Glove d'OJ]

Did you even read the article? Methinks not. Perhaps you should post in the political section on slashdot...

This article was describing an attempt to close a loophole in previously exclusive data. This is not additionally restricting the data. I do not believe that this is "hiding" anything.

The article clearly states that this proposed law will prohibit documents/data that are currently exclusive to the US Govt from being requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

As for the media being "complacent," my $0.02 would say that that would depend upon which side of the Liberal/Conservative fence you currently are... but that's another story...

Re:Blind Spot

[myowntrueself]

"Yeah, like Anibus's big pyramid ship attacking the Earth! (see last episode of SG1 in August)."

Just wait till those guys, currently in Atlantis, come back with a big swarm of Puddlejumpers and give Anubis SHIT!

Re:Blind Spot

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Thanks for correcting my spelling- but last we saw of Anubis, he had taken over a member of the SG headquarters and ended up sent to a planet in the middle of an ice age- won't be seeing him again real soon.

Re:Blind Spot

[Doc Ruby]

Youthinks not. The article, which I read, and you apparently didn't, closes a "loophole" in the Freedom of Information Act, in which commercial, nonclassified satellite images that the government buys, and any image or other product derived from it, would be unavailable for publication under the FOIA. That additionally restricts the data. Without even reading the article, from your own statement, "close a loophole in previously exclusive data" means "additionally restricting the data". That is hiding things. A government agency could hide flights like the ones I mentioned by buying the satellite imagery of it, which would suppress it for anyone else - that simple.

American media complacency is obvious to anyone. People who talk in terms of the "Liberal/Conservative fence" might like it, but it's real. Given your inability to digest the implications of either the Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2003-2004 on Slashdot's front page merely 2 days ago, or the obvious secrecy of cropping these satellite images from FOIA jurisdiction, I recommend that you should not post in the political section of Slashdot, until you've learned more about reading the news, or understanding government. Boy, does the title of this thread ring true.

Good Thing?

[Gyorg_Lavode]

No offense, but has anyone considered that being able to obtain detailed government satallite imagery might not be the best thing in the world? It didn't matter when our only enemies had the same damn images from their own birds, but now are enemies don't run spy satalite networks so maybe we shouldn't be just giving it away.

Re:Good Thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

...but what is it really good for? Are gas pipelines now to be unpublished on maps? Well, any dork driving around can see where the various vents and pumping stations are, and put two-and-two together.

The rights-of-way necessarily need to be recorded in real estate transactions as well, so a title search (get work at a title company and do it on the sly) should work as well.

Dams are pretty obvious as well. How much TNT would it take to punch a hole in Hoover Dam? Probably just a couple of tons, enough to be carried on a pontoon house boat that drops the load so that it blows up next the wall, but only about half way down. Somehow, I do not think that civilian authorities could react to it, nor are the procedures in place to scramble a couple of "hot alert" F-16's from Nellis or Luke AFB, loaded with war-shot Maverics, to blast the sucker (how much damage would a miss do to the dam?).

And of course, it'll be some hoodwinked old geezer and his wife's boat, and the story if it fails will be "USAF mistakenly prosecutes pleasure craft", if it fails.

Re:Good Thing?

[maximilln]

but has anyone considered that being able to obtain detailed government satallite imagery might not be the best thing in the world?

Do you really think our military leaders are so short-sighted that they don't take this into consideration? If it's important enough they'll do it when or in a manner that it can't be caught on satellite. If it's caught on satellite then it wasn't important enough to hide in the first place. Strategic planners in the military don't make it to their rank because they're complete retards.

Re:Good Thing?

[Gyorg_Lavode]

Having seen our satallite imagery of other countries I can tell you your statement, (which ammounts to "satallite imagery is useless for intelligence gathering"), is completely untrue.

Re:Good Thing?

[Gyorg_Lavode]

Security through obscurity isn't good, but it beats nothing.

Re:Good Thing?

[maximilln]

can tell you your statement, (which ammounts to "satallite imagery is useless for intelligence gathering")

That's rule #1 of the troll handbook, isn't it, jump to the extreme? Here... have a chestnut.

I didn't say that satellite imagery is useless for intelligence gathering. Unless they plan on blacking out the entirety of the US the rail lines and public infrastructure will still be available. Obviously the bill is not intended to stop intelligence gathering. The bill doesn't even limit intelligence ownership as there are bound to be multiple sources for the same aerial photo.

Now that we've decided that this bill has nothing to do with intelligence or military or terrorism why don't you concede that it's just a cheap way for some CEO with a satellite website to fleece the taxpayers?

Re:Good Thing?

[Gyorg_Lavode]

I think your confusing making the information less available with making the information completely available or making the information completely unavailable.

Re:Good Thing?

[HeghmoH]

Stuff that needs to be kept secret should be declared as such, that's what "classified" means. This is an attempt to keep things secret without having to go through the bother of classifying them.

No, no, no!

[M. Piedlourd]

This bill only applies to satellite images purchased by the government from outside vendors with an exclusivity agreement. From the Armed Services Committee report:

The United States often enters into exclusive licensing agreements with commercial satellite operators that prohibit these companies from selling certain unclassified data and imagery, except to the United States and to approved customers. Compelled release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national security by mandating disclosure to the general public upon request.

This is a very specific class of satellite photo. Commercial photos sold to private users are still legal; so are government photos obtained via non-exclusive contracts. The submitter and article have the facts all wrong!

who asked for Deficit

[anandpur]

From : Miguel de Icaza
Associated Press: Beating the last year record of 375 billion dollars, this year the projected deficit is going to be 422 billion.

Taylor just sent this note:

Budget Deficit $442,000,000,000
divided by
Workers 141,700,000 (Census Bureau)
----------------
Equals $3119 per worker

I hope you all are ready to work extra hard next year.
Flak Jackets don't grow on trees.

To be really thorough...

[dpilot]

They'll need one heck of a firewall around the US, so we can't just go to European sites for their images of our territory.

This accomplishes nothing, and is therefore obviously silly. There is a mindset back of it that seems to think only the US and US companies have satellite images useful for terrorist purposes. Actually, it's an incredibly close parallel to encryption, in many ways. It's going to hurt US companies, it'll push the supply of that data overseas, and it'll do nothing to stop the bad-guys from getting the data, either.

I should probably write to Bernie tonight, since it's beyond Leahy and Jeffords already.

Re:To be really thorough...

[Angstroem]

They'll need one heck of a firewall around the US, so we can't just go to European sites for their images of our territory.

Being European myself I hate so say that, but: Be sure that the USA will "kindly ask" the European government to adopt a similar law -- which, of course, will then be adopted.

You got DMCA. We got something similar.

You have software patents. We're in the process of adopting them.

You got the "war against terror". We send you the entire passenger data as requested, even though its against our data protection laws. (And lately, I've seen signs on the campus telling that the area is "camera protected". Excuse me, but cameras don't protect. They monitor. They control. They keep under surveillance. But they do not protect. And yes, it's not restricted to our campus. Cameras are popping up everywhere.)

We wanted to launch Galileo to be independent of GPS. The USA had serious issues with that, so Europe negotiated a compromise.

So I guess you will have to buy the images on the Russian or Asian market...

I heard about this a couple days ago...

[Saint Aardvark]

...on the Secrecy News Mailing List. It's absolutely fascinating, and (bonus for this Canuckistanian) not entirely about US government secrecy, though that plays a big part (and is gruesomely fascinating in itself). If you haven't subscribed yet, do so; it's an insider's view of things second only to ProMED-Mail (which isn't at all about secrecy but is just as fascinating).

And about the other story: WOW. I would love the chance to send up a four-inch cube into space. God alone knows what the hell I would do with it -- I'm no electronics guy -- but the possibilities are simply too cool to be believed. I'd be tempted to go back to university and get an engineering degree just to be able to be part of a project like that.

But hey, who says that's necessary? $40K for a launch, even U$, isn't that much if you get a bunch of people together. There's people that chip in to buy an airplane -- how long 'til we see people (besides the good folks running OSCAR, that is) getting together to build and launch their own cubesat? God knows I'd be there in a heartbeat...

Re:Satellite Pics Going Dark?

[fishbowl]

"Is congress working for american businesses or what."

YES. Nobody else really communicates with them. The government operates as if apathy is the mandate to serve the interest of big business.

Thankfully there are other countries satellites...

[PantyChewer]

that will sell you pictures and laugh at the draconian US laws.

Our own system

[fadethepolice]

If the satellites are down to $65,000 why don't we start buying and deploying our own communications system so we can stop bitching about the governments'. A nice data haven wouldn't be bad either...

There are other sources of satellite images

[hopethishelps]

Let's keep a sense of proportion here. There are other sources of satellite photographs than the US - you can buy photographs taken from satellites launched by Ariane, for example. If the US government prevents US companies from supplying you with photos, Europe, China and Russia all have the capability to fill the gap. With the disappearance of a subsidized competitor, no doubt they will expand their offerings. There's a link to some sources here (Google cache).

Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[Chagatai]

I recall reading a sci-fi story wherein someone effectively stopped satellites, space exploration, and any other spacebound equipment by launching some sand or ball bearings into orbit. As this stuff was travelling around the earth at about 40,000 mph, anything in its path would suffer damage at a minimum or be shredded at worst (think about the paint chips that were found embedded in the Space Shuttle's window an inch or two deep). The damaged stuff, in turn, would further wreck other objects, in perpetuity. Out of morbid curiosity, can any rocket or space scientists estimate what would happen if one of those little tubes was filled with some abrasive agent? I realize, of course, that some would fall back to the earth and some would escape orbit, but how plausible is that sci-fi idea?

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[MBCook]

I don't know what story that's from, but I don't think it's that plausable. You would have to get it into orbit without the company launching it knowing that. I would think that would be hard to do and they would inspect things. After all, if you turned space into a death trap for satellites, their business would dry up and they would fail. It's in their best interest to try to prevent that.

So if you wanted to do that, I think you would have to launch it yourself. Build a rocket that could get it into the right orbit and what not. It would be next to impossible. And let's not forget that if you were caught (either before or after) your life would end. Not only could you be sued to oblivian by anyone who has put a satellite into orbit, the government would lock you up indefinatly for treasons, sabatoge, and anything else for (attempting to) destroy their GPS satellites/weather satellites/spy satellites/etc. You would "disappear" off the face of the Earth, or be locked in jail untill the end of time. Same basic thing either way.

And to quote Moe Sizlack: "God help you if that thing carried the Spice channel".

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Better yet- what can you fit in 64 cubic inches that would survive reentry? Can you do it in say, 16 fewer cubic inches so that you can include a GPS reciever, and some sort of jet to deorbit on target?

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[myowntrueself]

"You would have to get it into orbit without the company launching it knowing that. I would think that would be hard to do and they would inspect things."

Thats what the 'non disclosure agreement' is for, dude.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[multipartmixed]

If you *really* wanted the satellite network shut down, all you'd have to do is somehow sneak in a four-inch tube full of anthrax.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[MyHair]

Not likely, if not imposible. Setting aside the difficulties of doing so, if you got some debris flying at a speed so much greater or lesser than satellites to damage them the mass would either fall towards the earth or rise to a higher orbit while the satellite is in a stable orbit.

I suppose it's possible to launch debris in an intersecting orbit, but that would probably require a lot more fuel and would likely miss a lot.

In answer to your question, if someone launched an abrasive it would either fly out of orbit, fall out of orbit or stabilize in an orbit. If it stabilized in an orbit it wouldn't hit anything in the same orbit since it's going at the same speed. If it somehow got into the same altitude orbit but at a different angle than existing satellites maybe it could hit them, but I doubt it.

Disclaimer: I am an ignorant idiot.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could take out all the geostationary satellites by putting debris in the same orbit moving in the opposite direction (i.e. against Earth's rotation).

I can't be bothered to try and calculate how much stuff you need to put up there, you need to find the width of the geostationary tracks sat's usually take compared to their surface area (plus make some assumptions about the size of the debris you put up there, I think a sand particle would probably go through a sat' and not cause much damage unless it got lucky and hit a vital chip or wire....).

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[jsebrech]

You could take out all the geostationary satellites by putting debris in the same orbit moving in the opposite direction (i.e. against Earth's rotation).

But, since you wouldn't be able to hitch a ride on the earth's rotation, which is a boost of 1000 mph at the equator. So, your rocket would not only have to overcome this rotation, but actually inverse it, meaning it would have to have enough extra oomph to overcome twice the earth's rotation. I'm not up to snuff on rockets, but somehow I'm thinking your run-of-the-mill retrofitted ICBM isn't going to cut it (which is what they're using for these minisats).

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[Thomas Shaddack]

That would have to be a helluva lot of sand. A small cube won't do, the space is too big.

However, if you want to take out a single known satellite on a low orbit, like most of the IMINT and SIGINT ones are, it should do the job. I read somewhere about the possibility of third-world countries rigging up anti-satellite weapons from bigger ballistic missiles, using them to bring a payload of sand and pebbles into the satellite's orbit. Cheaper than a MIRACL-class laser, more mobile, the staff has already experience with the vehicles, and could be quite effective.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[Teancum]

While that is an interesting issue, the truth is that such objects would essentially vaporize when they hit another spacecraft, like the spaceshuttle. Besides, similar sized objects have already caused damage to the shuttle, so that isn't even news. Also, a single tube of BB's (or similar sized objects) would quickly disperse over a volume that would have at least the area the size of the entire earth + 200km extra radus milage. Comparatively few per m^3.

Something I think would be considerably more effective was described by Buzz Aldrin in his book "The Return", where he describes a nuclear power nation with spacefaring capabilities (I think it was China) detonated a very dirty nuke in LEO, essentially saturating the Van Allen Belts and making the ISS a very deadly place to be living. It also caused havoc with LEO satellites, but they could be hardened much easier than similar precautions that would have to be done with manned spaceflight. This effectively shut down all manned spaceflight to/from the Earth.

I don't know if this is a real possibility, but considering the author, I think it is more likely than merely a bunch of pebbles launched in orbit deliberately.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[twostar]

Actually the worry is that it starts a chain reaction, one particle hits a LEO bird and that breaks into multiple particles and spreads.

This is a very real worry and the FCC is processing rules to ensure that satellites deorbit or go into so called junk orbits after end of life. They've released a couple recent notifications and proposed rules that has picosatellite builders scared since it's virtually impossible to build in deorbit capabilities on birds this small.

It would effectively limit our orbits to 500km or less and that would severly limit the launches we could ride on since we can't dictate the launch altitudes, we go wherever the primary goes.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[FenrirWolf]

Perhaps you are thinking about Frederik Pohl's Homecoming, in which space exploration was halted due to a Reagan-like Star Wars satellite war. There was so much junk left over after the failed war that almost anything that was sent up later would be punctured -- Preventing human manned exploration. Of course, the aliens in the book liked this because it meant we were effectively isolated at the bottom of our gravity well...

Wait, now that I think about it, was that Homegoing or Homecoming? The other was a Heecee novel, IIRC.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[qeveren]

I'd think that detonating a dirty nuke in orbit would be a very short-term problem. The solar wind and whatnot would probably clean all that out pretty quick... and it's not like space isn't terribly radioactive already. ^^

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[justins]

The damaged stuff, in turn, would further wreck other objects, in perpetuity.

Stuff like that would probably form rings around the planet eventually. I imagine if our planet lent itself to that scenario, it would have rings.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[Saeger]

And let's not forget that if you were caught (either before or after) your life would end. Not only bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

That's a very small price to pay for giving grief to 6+ billion people, wouldn't you say?

It's also the ultimate suicide bomb if you think about it: the odds of the human race surviving are almost nil if we can't get our eggs out of the basket in the next few decades before increasingly powerful tech makes it into irrational common hands.

--

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

space is big.

There is already the equivalent of 100,000+ ball bearings in orbit around the earth due to all the junk we've put into orbit ... from exploding, defective, malfunctioning equipment, from leaky coolant systems, from garbage and human waste ejections, to a ham sandwhich that flew out from one of the gemini capsules in the 60's ... which was tracked for sometime til it finally did re-enter the atmosphere.

Exactly how many ball bearings do you think it would take to wipe out all satellites, in a volume of space equal to roughly 20x the earth's volume?

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[DMUTPeregrine]

Same speed, yes, but not necessarily in the same direction. Rear end collisions are impossible, but head on collisions are easy.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[6th time lucky]

I think it is the plasma cloud that is generated by (small) things hitting so fast that is the main problem. The charged cloud causes all sorts of problems to electronics...

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[MyHair]

As jsebrech says it'd be damn near impossible to launch them into a head-on orbit from the earth. Orbit-bound and space-bound rockets don't go straight up; they are already spinning with the earth and boost that orbital speed incrementally. As the other guy said you'd have to at least double the effort (and rocket fuel, I presume...but then you'd have to have more rocket fuel to carry the load of the extra rocket fuel...yikes). And I suspect you'd have more issues with air friction.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[Teancum]

Boy, isn't that an agency that is way out of its element. While it is somewhat arguable that the FAA (that is the Federal Aviation Administration) may have some juristiction over federal satellites, there is in fact no real person or agency that can control what goes on in LEO. They can insist that you deorbit if you want to get a launch permit for the next launch (a big deal for some commercial launchers), but that would be it.

I certainly hope that the FCC was just a typo.

For most picosatellites, I would hope that you would generally keep them at low altitudes (100 to 500 km) because at least then the orbit would eventually decay and it would burn going back into the atmosphere. As for higher altitude orbits, I don't really see where the juristiction would come in. Geosync orbits legitimately are given "slots", because communications to those birds is best done in about 2 degree increments around the equator (based mainly on issues with earth-based receivers), limiting the total number of "active" geosync satellites to roughly 180, and prime slots over Africa and South America to established space faring nations (they got there first).

If you want to really launch satellites, you could always get help from the Mexican Space Agency (I'm not kidding here either). There is little to nothing the FAA could do about that either.

Really, I don't see what the problem is with the BBs. Some space debris is considerably more dangerous (like some of the upper stages for Apollo and some decomissioned satellites in a higher orbit that simply don't decay). There are natural hazards that are of similar relevance.

Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube?

[twostar]

Nope, I typed that right. The FCC is going to base licencing of the frequencies on the deorbit info. Wonderfull stuff. It has been challenged as to if it has juristiction by a couple groups but nothing in the courts yet. I'm trying to find a link to the latest proposed rule making but not having much luck. The last release was in July of this year if you want to do some research of your own.

Crazy interpretation in that story...

[georgewilliamherbert]

The legislation doesn't make it illegal to redistribute any commercial satellite imagery. It just makes it illegal to redistribute imagery that the US government purchased exclusive rights to but has not classified.

They're purchasing exlusive rights over certain image areas to avoid having to classify the data output from all the commercial satellite operators.

Maybe you could argue that they should just go classify it anyways, but the result will be the same. The Government reserves the right to tell commercial image satellite operators where they can't take pictures, or can't sell the images they do take. This is not news. The mechanism by which that is enforced is just adjusting a bit.

Re:Crazy interpretation in that story...

[RodgerDodger]

They should go and classify it anyway.

The results are _not_ the same. Classification is subject to internal review, is available to the Congressional oversight committees, and expires after a certain period of time. Revalation of classified material is a crime with severe penalties.

This, however, is a way to toss the images into a black box and not let them come out except when the DoD wants to trot out selected images of their own choice. Not being classified, they wouldn't be requried to show the pictures to Congress, nor would they _ever_ become available to the public.

In general, if the result of using an existing mechanism is "the same", and they won't use the said mechanism, then you can bet the results are NOT the same.

Re:Crazy interpretation in that story...

[georgewilliamherbert]

This, however, is a way to toss the images into a black box and not let them come out except when the DoD wants to trot out selected images of their own choice. Not being classified, they wouldn't be requried to show the pictures to Congress, nor would they _ever_ become available to the public.

True, they might not ever become public (though are likely to do so eventually...). But Congress can subpoena any government info it wants to. And regularly does. Commercial proprietary info issues and classified info issues are handled all the time by congressional staff.

Calling it a black box is unreasonable. It's practically going to be less black than truly classified image intelligence, for example, and that's coming out after 30 or so years of delay from when it was taken.

Just because the mechanism isn't explicit doesn't mean it will stay black. Any future President or Secretary of Defense could at any time release the data hold on that data. And such things do happen, regularly.

4 Corners !!!

[gomel]

NO!!! IT has to be a 4 Corner Cube ! The satellite can be placed then at the four quadrants of the orbit SIMULTANEOUSLY!

I have been informed that the academic pedant hirelings are conspiring to defame my 4-inch Cube, as a means to discredit the Time/Life/Truth Cube Creation Principle.

You CAN grow 4-inches !
I will wager $65,000.00 on it!

Re:4 Corners !!!

[SoSueMe]

Isn't that the "Warner/Time/Life/Truth Cube Creation Principle."?

Gotta be careful of trademarks these days.

not all sats are american

[geoff lane]

The french have a few image satellites and have always been willing to sell the images on the open market.

If the report is true it's yet another example of stupid non-security that does nothing to improve security yet is also damaging to the existing market.

IIRC, US special forces walked around important Bagdad buildings with GPS wristwatches to ensure accurate targeting so they didn't have to rely on maps or satellite images.

Forget "conspiracy theory" this is damned obvious!

[erroneus]

Restricting what the public can see and access. Maintaining secret laws for secret reasons and defended in secret trials?

WHERE THE HELL ARE WE?!

Globalization makes this irrelevant

[Qrlx]

Fine, so you won't be able to get those images from US-based satellite imaging companies.

Non-Government customers for this data will simply spend their dollars in another country. US-based companies may want to consider relocating to an environment less hostile to their business.

The only people negatively affected by this rule are the American people.

cuz the launch is still a billion dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

plus the operation costs money.

Shrug...

[Billy the Mountain]

They can't prevent a space tourist from snapping a few pictures while aboard SpaceShip One, now could they? Not that SpaceShip One is anywhere near operational, the point is, I think we're progressing to where U.S. government satellite information gathering is irrelevant. If the government won't provide the imagery, a myriad of other governments and agencies will for a price and natural competition will drive that price down.

BTM

Re:Shrug...

[Anonymous Coward]

I somehow doubt that a tourist with a camera is going to compete in quality or economy to the real deal.

Helps Israel

[Anonymous Coward]

US commercial firms must wait for Israel to duplicate the technology before they are allowed to sell the information.

One step closer

[ShroomSolo]

Looks like it would make some of us one step closer to removing our tinfoil hats... Unless its just the government controlling the satalites. I think I need to stick my head in the microwave to take care of any RFID tags that might have been implanted without me knowing

enough crap in space already?

[Loconut1389]

Don't we have enough dead junk in space already? Why fill the orbits up with cheap, dead hardware that's more likely to bring down a space shuttle or destroy an important satellite as the dead piece of junk descends in orbit. Off the shelf is great for cost, but what's the bigger cost of having more chunks of metal in orbit than we already do.

Isn't this a dupe?

[Alwin Henseler]

To this earlier story?

Summarised: taxpayers' money is used to put satellites in orbit (or obtain imagery from 3rd parties), so shouldn't that same taxpaying public have full access to images that are sent back?

I could understand some exceptions for super high resolution pix of military installations or classified research facilities, but all images? That is way too broad, and no justification for it. Besides, if you have something secret that can't bear daylight, then just hide it/cover it up, like normal people do.

Re:who asked for Deficit - Look at the DEBT

[jimbro2k]

The National Debt http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ is the big thing: US $7,375,598,685,765. Your share is $25,078.39 Real money, that YOU (U.S. Citizen) really owe and will really pay off. There are two ways you can pay it off: The Hard way or the MUCH HARDER way. The Hard way requires congress to have a measure of honesty and courage, and an electorate serious about cutting spending. (like any of that will happen). The MUCH HARDER way is to do nothing until inflation reaches triple digits. Since the 25K is about 2-3 times more than the average income, you can either go without a salary for 2-3 years, or have your real income cut in half for 5. Enjoy!!

Derived Products?

[Mik3D]

This could have some far reaching implications. Just about all GIS data products are derived from, or referenced to, some form of imagery these days. If the gov decided to get picky a good portion of the free GIS data available on-line could disappear.

On the other hand it could be a great help to GIS managers who are maintaining dynamic data. With current rules managers have to consider how many iterations of a data set to archive, and how long it must be kept around.

If someone FOIAs a dataset from a paticular date, does an agency have to provide it as it existed... or as it exists now? If it is the former there are thousands of iterations to keep track of.

Why? I'll tell you why...

[glass_window]

Because Bush doesn't want satellite images of his ranch getting out.

Israeli Goverment already control US satillites

[Anonymous Coward]

Isreali Goverment already controls the shutter on US spacecraft. Why can't the US government have the same rights over AMERICAN spacecraft?

link for more info here

Shutter control: Still there are issues that concern the remote-sensing industry. When applying a concept called shutter control, U.S.-issued licenses also contain provisions for the control of sensitive areas where space imaging might be limited. Shutter control restrictions on the space photography of Israel were inserted into a Senate bill in 1997. Drafted by Rep. John Kyle (R-Arizona) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), the law imposes restrictions on imaging Israeli territory during certain periods invoked by the Israel government. The imposition of restrictions was unpopular with U.S. industry, which saw foreign partners without these limits as more competitive internationally. Still, U.S. providers worked around the matter. "The whole issue of shutter control was a short-term issue," Gabrynowicz said. "It wasn't a major issue, such as ownership control, monitoring or compliance," she said. Wooldridge agreed. "Any imposition of the [shuttle control] provision will be for the smallest area and the shortest period necessary," he said. "There can't be any permanent blackouts."

Trust us - we saw what we saw

[motorsabbath]

Well, at least this way a nefarious government wouldn't have to worry about showing it's lacking proof for weapons of mass destruction to the pesky public.

"Trust us - we saw what we saw."

Re:Trust us - we saw what we saw

[vandan]

Exactly what I was thinking.

What sort of a 'free' world is the US pushing where it's illegal to look at your own planet from space?

Looks like George Orwell was only off by 20 years.

Oh no...

[mpaon]

imagine a beowulf cluster of CubeSats!

Not related to the US deficit!

[tfcdesign]

This completely unrelated to the US deficit. Besides, there is the projected deficit (which is a larger number) and the _realized_ defict. Which is not an extrodinary number in comparision. Thanks for turning news into a witchhunt.

why is a new law needed?

[nusratt]

There are already provisions for denying FOIA requests for security reasons,
on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
This is just another John Assfuck excuse for denying all request in bulk in advance.

Re:why is a new law needed?

[multipartmixed]

There must be more to it than that -- if they just wanted to deny access to all sat images, they could just issue a press release telling the world that they can't do that, because copying the data would crash the computers.

It still doesn't make much sense

[Trepidity]

Unless they're hiding something, it doesn't make much sense. Things relating to national security are already exempt from the FOIA, which is why text documents requested via FOIA are often either outright denied, or released with a lot of things blacked out. If a satellite photograph shows troop movements in an ongoing conflict, the government already can exempt it from the FOIA with a simple explanation of "national security" or "that's classified".

What they want to do here is exempt unclassified things that do not impact national security. I can't see a legitimate reason for doing that. If they are things it would be dangerous to give out, they ought to be classified. If not, they ought to be subject to the FOIA.

Re:It still doesn't make much sense

[Anonymous Coward]

You failed reading comprehension in school didn't you?

Re:It still doesn't make much sense

[jc42]

What they want to do here is exempt unclassified things that do not impact national security. I can't see a legitimate reason for doing that.

It seems self-explanatory when you put it that way. There are some major campaign contributors that are responsible for some of the serious environmental desctruuction (pollution, clearcutting, etc.) that's happening in a lot of the world. They need a way of keeping satellite imagery of their sites out of the hands of people like you and me. The old "national security" excuse doesn't work too well. They need a ruse to block release of photos of those sites, and this sure looks like a way to do it.

Re:It still doesn't make much sense

[Ayaress]

Don't bother trying to make sense of it. The Department of the Treasury siezed all the property of a pizza shop near my college where I eat with some friends every Thursday. When we got there last week, and were told "No pizza," by a 400 pound gentleman with a clipboard, we asked what it was about, and were directed to a few forms to submit, because seizures are public knowledge, but he doesn't get paid to chat with pedestrians (he gets paid to sit on the curb eating pizzas - paid for by customers just before the seizure began - hot out of the newly reposessed oven). My friend did this just to piss the guy off, and got back a nice letter that he was not intitled to know why the place was shut down because it was a matter of grave national security.

I'll admit that what those people tried to pass for Canadian bacon was a crime against food, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a grave matter of anything.

Re:Oh No! Keep the pictures away from terrorists!!

[EtherAlchemist]

There's almost nothing for anyone TO see, most of that stuff is outdated and none of it is real-time, what good is it?

I don't understand it myself, there's almost nothing you would be able to discern about a potential target from sat images that you couldn't just by typing it into Google or driving by the damn thing.

Where I live, there are three major Navy installations- Bangor sub base, Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station and PSNS (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard) and guess what? There are road signs all over the place for them! Gate markers, directions, and so on, all on the highway. You can see into just about every part of PSNS and Keyport from the residential areas, water and hills that surround it which, to a terrorist, would be way more informative than staring at outdated aerial shot of it. Bangor can be peeked in on from the water or from across the water. If you're gathering intel on these places, it's not hard (given what they do) to guess that the flat railroad car with the giant drum on the back and Marine escort is probably carrying a reactor core or nuke materials, or that those buildings the subs go into are probably where refuelling and weapons loading happens. You can see this kind of stuff on a daily basis during a commute, and nywhere you can see, you can shoot- guns, rockets, whatever.

How long before we're like USSR

[Lead Butthead]

I read somewhere (sorry, it's been a long time) that maps of varies soviet cities were downright inaccurate for "security reasons."

Re:How long before we're like USSR

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, novosibirsk is a bit like this: all the research institutes and even the novisibirsk state university are not in novosib, but 40 km from there in the middle of the siberian forest in a town called akadem gorodok...

Re:Google Invites

[John Napkintosh]

Heh, all stale.

Waste of money and time

[just some computer j]

I can't believe this. Is this country going the way of Statinist Russia? I am looking to buy a home some time next year, areial photographs and satellite photos are needed by my insurance agent to see if I live in a flood plain. If the government restricts access to pictures taken from space or from a plane, what's next I ask? We can't take pictures of the Washington Monument because we might be terrorists? Come on!! Is this going to also include sat photos of other countries? I travel to Japan a lot, and I like to be able to see some of the country before I get there, and so I know my way around a bit. This is a complete waste of time, effort, and money. If a terrorist is going to attack, do you think he is going to use a sat photo? Damn doubtful. More like a road map from Rand McNally.

"And One School Bus"

[Ungrounded Lightning]

This would only prohibit the release of data that is already prohibited from sale to customers other than the US Government.

As it currently stands, commerical imagery operators are prohibited from selling certain data to anyone but the government. Third parties cannot buy this data. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from filing a Freedom of Information request once the government buys it. This would close that loophole.

And open another one - for the government to use to slam the door on FOIA requests, not just for the imagery, but for anything "derived from it".

Which means that the government could include a gratuitous satellite picture in any report they wanted to make exempt from the FOIA.

Just as the California legislature includes a couple school busses in nearly any appropriation bill, to bypass the voter-initiated constitutional requirement that appropriations bills requre a supermajority but lowers the bar on school funding bills. (A loophole that has led to the near bankruptcy of the state.)

University of Arizona Cubesat

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

I work on the UA's Cubesat program. I'm the one who wrote the (minimal) operating program for our four cubesats. This program has been a lot of fun.

I'm not entirely sure what we'll find with our design, but as 10cm cubes go, ours isn't bad. It stores sensor information on a timed schedule and has two-way communication with our ground station, plus an autonomous beacon transmitting on a separate frequency.

I think the article was a little misleading about the usage of COTS parts in these things. For sure, we did not build our own microprocessor, but most of the work tying together components is custom designed stuff by students. Our controller board (with PIC microcontroller), our power board (with AA batteries and charge regulator), and the radio board were all student designed and built.

The components on those boards, such as the PIC, the radio, and the AD converters is, of course, COTS, but that's about it.

Launch will be "Real Soon Now". Can't wait... and I really hope it works!

Re:University of Arizona Cubesat

[Thomas Shaddack]

Our controller board (with PIC microcontroller),...

Could I be nosy and wonder what one, please, and why did you select this kind? Microchip PICs are my favorite toys? Are you worried about the effects of radiation on the controller (CMOS structures tend to trap charge carriers in the insulator between the junction and the gate, so they are everything but rad-hard)? If yes, what measures you do to mitigate it? Do you have redundant scheme with more controllers, guarding each other, or just a watchdog and a prayer? Do tell, please :)

Re:University of Arizona Cubesat

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

We are using a PIC 16F877 microcontroller. We chose a PIC because it was simple to implement, simple to program (not counting compiler bugs), and power efficient.

Radiation is certainly a concern, but there have been a handful of other successful small satellite missions using PICs so there is some prior usage. I don't have links handy, though. I do know, however, that because of cost and simplicity, a number of other Cubesats are also using PICs.

A hang or single event upset is still a danger, though. To provide some protection, we have a simple onboard clock chip which has an alarm feature. This alarm is set to trigger weekly and this will reset the PIC.

The 16F877 model has flash memory for program storage making it great for development. We could have added another layer of safety by using the 16C877 which is the same chip, but with EEPROM program storage.

For storing sensor data and persistent settings, our board has 64K of FRAM (Ferromagnetic RAM). We had done some reading/research that indicated this would perform well in space.

Still, in low Earth orbit, there really isn't THAT much radiation, so the problems should be minimal. Also, the planned lifetime for this satellite is not very long. If we needed it for years, we probably would have made some different choices.

If you're still interested, my documentation for the code I wrote is at:
http://bach.as.arizona.edu/~cubesat/cubesat_manual

It's mostly just software documentation and doesn't touch too much on the hardware issues, but they are mentioned. I like talking about this. :) So if you've got any more questions feel free to ask.

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good look finding the US Navy Shipyard at Bremerton. (It's west of the ferry terminal).

Also, zooming around North Island Navy Station and Point Loma, the pens where they keep the dolphins are visible, but the areas around the sub tenders e are blacked out. The semicircles on the hillside there are weapons bunkers.

This law is a pretty sad excuse.

Besides, it wouldn't be too hard to casually drive through a military installation to see where the weapons armories and ammo dumps are.
So they're not on the map or are blacked out in Terraserver.

Wow. What an impressive security feature by the US Government!

I ask you

[g0bshiTe]

What possible reason could they have to do this?
Is it because Aliens/UFO's do exist?
What's next the Sun and Stars? The moon?

Re:Forget "conspiracy theory" this is damned obvio

[BlacKat]

The United Corporate States of America, where did you think? ;)

Re:Forget "conspiracy theory" this is damned obvio

[Anonymous Coward]

1984

Capitol hill, too.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Capitol Hill, too.

How long before the terrorists look for targets by looking for blurs in the terraserver database?

Can't have people

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't have people seeing nasty evidence of weather manipulation going on now, can we? Darn ole internet, leaking out that info, folks are starting to talk!

"Only during wartime..."

[karlandtanya]

Means now and forever. And don't gripe about it; we're trying to fight a war here.

On August 30, 2004, President Bush stated that the war on terror cannot be won. This surprised some people, it seems.

Of course it cannot be won. It is the perfect war.

Geez, doesn't anybody assign 1984 as required reading for high school students anymore?

Come to think of it, I suppose they shouldn't.

Re:"Only during wartime..."

[realdpk]

They didn't assign 1984 in my high school. Most people I know have never read it. Too bad, really.

Re:"Only during wartime..."

[lucas teh geek]

Too bad, really

not really. I hated almost every book that I was forced to read in school; I hated being forced to over-analyse them and "find" some bullshit deeper meaning in order to regurgitate what the teacher wanted to hear in essay form. a story could never be just a story, it had to have some cryptic meaning (that the author probably never even intended). I read 1984 and i thought it was brilliant. If school had made me read it i know I wouldnt feel the same way about it

You're missing the point

[pixelphsr]

You all seem to be missing the real impact of this law. As things stand right now, the government can tell commercial satellite imagery vendors that it wants to buy exclusive rights to any new images over specific areas for defined periods of time. The gov't isn't simply protecting the data that it has purchased, it is saying that the vendors cannot sell imagery for these areas to anyone but the government.

That means that the gov't can create a blank spot on the map for regions where they have "special interests". These interests could be anything from military bases (think, Guantanimo) to war zones (insert obvious choices here) to public utilities (nuclear power plants) to national parks (oil drilling in ANWAR or logging in Yellowstone).

Also, I do not believe that the satellite owners will have the choice of not selling exclusive rights to the gov't. I think that the licenses that allow these companies to operate require them to grant this type of exclusive license to any data that the gov't wants. (I could be wrong on this, but I remember reading it somewhere.)

Re:You're missing the point

[Jameth]

What is further bothersome is not that it allows them to do this, but it creates a new channel for them to do it, so they can do it without making it obvious. They can already obtain exclusive rights and classify the information for security purposes, but it will be declassified in according to a predetermined timeline and will be accessible after that point. Then, it will be trouble if it comes out that they hadn't the right to declassify it. When does this intrusion into my rights expire?

Re:You're missing the point

[Yet Another Smith]

The article really is a bit breathless (GOES weather imagery and LANDSAT are almost undoubtedly going to be unaffected, as they're typically not held until they get FOIA requests, but just released generally).

It is also worth noting that this simply exempts these documents from FOIA requests. Which means the government doesn't HAVE to release them, but they still often will.

I really am sick of the Bush admin's attitude toward FOIA requests, in general. They seem to be operating from a 'deny first, ask questions later' philosophy (indeed I seem to remember reading about a story where the DOJ issued guidelines like that). That and they're over-classifying things, and not declassifying at anything approaching a reasonable rate.

I don't even understand what they think all this secrecy is accomplishing, anyway. Thier dirty laundry is getting out anyway, and homeland security isn't served, since people can get much of this info through other sources.

The oil drilling in ANWAR or loggin in Yellowstone is a bit of a red herring. LandSat, which would be more than enough to identify such issues, is widely available, and is for sale by the USGS. Besides, who really believes that a disgruntled park ranger or refuge worker wouldn't report it. All it takes is a Cessna and a digital camera to spot either case. Sure they could abuse this law to prevent space imagery of such areas to get out, but they could also just classify such imagery. If they're willing to abuse the law to cover up other illegal government actions, they'll find a way.

Gawd, I hate this word

[craw]

From the article.

"would exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) unclassified, commercial satellite pictures bought up by the government, as well as "any... other product that is derived from such data."

Oh no, here we go again! Not derivative products! I sure hope Orrin Hatch is not sponsoring this legislation. He might have picked up a few pointers from his nephew.:-)

So we buy them from the French.

[JThaddeus]

The French have long sold their imagery. Not as good as free but you can still get your pictures.

Re:You really are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S government has always been able to do this with satellites licensed by them - it is called 'shutter control'. In the case of Afghanistan, they preferred to buy the output of Ikonos (the only Very High Resolution satellite then operating) not only to keep it from anyone else but because the data was actually useful - coverage is always a problem with satellite data. Not only that - I think you'll find private companies operating satellites like QuickBird and Ikonos will sell you exclusive rights to imagery if you are willing to pay enough.
You can't keep the imagery from the govt, however. And did you know they will not let those companies sell imagery over Israel or the occupied territories at less than 2 metres resolution, as against the 60 cm capabilities of QuickBird for example.
All this legislation does is prevent using the FoI Act to circumvent restrictions already in place - for US-based companies. And they're not worried about weather sats or Landsat, I'm sure...

reality, not fantasy

[peter303]

The space derbis problem exists and is serious. A grain of dust has the momentum of a rifle bullet and a coin that of an automobile when there is a several thousanf MPH velocity differential. Norad radar tracks about 20,000 pieces larger than a coin. In the long term the derbis smashes itself into tiny pieces and settles in a "ring" orbit- the only stable configuration.

I read a scifi story where the space program ends because there is too much dangerous derbis up there. So does global communication, GPS, pagers, etc. when all the satellites are trashed.

Timeline

[maximilln]

Since this refers to photos which are sought by FOIA there's a time delay factor. It's not even logical to think about this in terms of real time aerial photographs. Rather, this is a move to block people who are trying to gather evidence of events that occurred months or even years ago.

Will the government suddenly be buying up all the rights to the aerial photographs of New York on 9/11 and the days prior? Will all the private photographs of Oklahoma City begin disappearing?

Other Satellietes...

[IDarkISwordI]

What about satellites that are around other planets such as Mars and Saturn. The act makes no definition of whether it applies to just the planet Earth or if it applies to ANY satellite, such as the Mars Odyssey. I foresee this act being twisted into something far worse than any past or present act that if passed, will be the beginning to the end of the freedom of press and obviously that would lead to the loss of freedom of speech. Now, I'm over-exaggerrating quite a bit here but please understand that if this bill is passed, the government has just succeeded at tipping the scale of who is in power. Telling companies what they can and can not do goes against almost all democratic beliefs.

Heres how this breaks down. Quoting the term 'land remote' from the act, the government could technicly censor anything that was taken from an aerial view. This includes everything from satellite imagery down to your local news chopper. Don't get me wrong, there probably shouldn't be any reason for the government to censor such material as the local traffic report but I do have a problem with them having the ability.

I'm calling for the peopel on /. to scream out and tell this POS government NO! N f***ing O! This is worse than the patriot act by far and it needs to be stopped!

Climate data?...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

A lot of satellite imagery that I have seen deals with climate measuring. It's not clear from reading the proposal itself if this "unclassified" data is included.

<AluminumFoilDeflectorBeanie mode="On"> might be a handy way to keep those filthy pinko commies and terrorists from showing evidence of climate change and messing up our plans to use up as much as possible before The Rapture(tm) comes, using our precious, precious unclassified photos...</AluminumFoilDeflectorBeanie>

That's the part that gets me - they're talking SPECIFICALLY about "unclassified" (i.e. NOT "Top Secret(tm)", etc.) information. The recommendation in the proposal explicitly mentions, in effect, the fact that, well, they COULD just classify the stuff that they don't want to show to potential commie terrorists (or the people who paid for it e.g. US Taxpayers) but that's just so inconvenient to have to do...

More grist for the Aluminum-Foil-Deflector-Beanie-defended conspiracy mill (from the proposal):
"Compelled[by the FOIA, etc.] release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national security by mandating disclosure to the general public upon request. While the data and imagery could be protected from disclosure under FOIA by classifying them, the United States prefers to keep them unclassified. Unclassified matter is more easily shared with coalition partners in contingency operations and with State and local officials in disaster relief and homeland security operations.[emphasis added]

It's terrible to think what horrible disasters could befall the US while we dare to "remove any profit motive" from taxpayer-funded "remote sensing" (which, presumably, includes imagery from sources other than satellites as well?) projects. I know I would feel safer if I wasn't allowed to look at this unclassified material that I'm paying for... And, gosh, I also feel better knowing my highly-paid legislators are Doing Something(tm) about, um, I guess terrorists or environmentalists or something.

mapquest used to have satalite pics

[EMR]

I remember when Mapquest used to have over head pictures as well as the "map", it made it MUCH easier to find ones way around when you could see landmarks..

Overreaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I for one don't see how exempting a certain type of information from the Freedom of Information Act has anything to do with the market of said information.
The companies should still be able to sell the photos they personally obtain, and the government could do the same should it so choose. Only _requests to the government for satellite photos_ wouldn't mandatorily be accepted. The FIOA allows citizens to request various (non-exempted) information, and requires the government to comply.
I think this is a large misinterpretation of what this exemption act would mean.

Keyhole Earthviewer

[iBran]

How would this affect Keyhole's Earthviewer program?

It's a Windows (DirectX/OpenGL) app that maps 2D satellite images on to 3D terrain, allowing you to zoom in/out and "fly" around.

I subscribe to their service, and IIRC, their imagery is purchased from many different sources, probably businesses that also sell to the Government. I take it Keyhole and its customers would be shut out if the gov't goes ahead with this?

I don't understand the logic behind it. It's not like you can't see the things the satellite images show you in real life.

Not overreacting

[Sebastopol]

I understand that this applies to photos purchased by the gov't (or "acquired" by the government), but thats the rub! The government can "acquire" anything it wants in the USA, and to a lesser extent, countries that it is allies with or has on a leash.

Doesn't Ikonos ring any bells?

We need more non-allied countries to start launching private satellites that anyone can purchase from or view for free. Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass?

Is Israel behind this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the US fronting for Israel in this? Israel objects strongly to satellite imagery of Israel with a resolution sharper than two meters being made publicly available. The US Congress was convinced to put special restrictions on satellite coverage of Israel.

The deal with Israel is described here by a USAF officer. It's led to an ongoing US effort to avoid the "proliferation" of satellite imaging technology.

This seems to have more to do with avoiding embarassment of Israel than any strategic purpose.

The point...

[Cryptnotic]

The point is that schizophrenics shouldn't be allowed to make web sites.

Inconvenient reality? Just say no!

[Catbeller]

Little known fact (in the U.S.):

During the Bush propaganda run-up to the 1991 Gulf war, the Bushies (same guys as the current Bushies, hence the name) put out the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had amassed troops on the border of Saudi Arabia. Stopping that massive invasion of Saudi Arabia was one of the major reasons to start the war.

Here's the part the U.S. has total amnesia about: news organizations, after the war, simply requested satellite photos of the Saudi border in question at the time we insisted the Iraqis were amassing its invasion.

Guess what? There were no troops there. Empty land. The troops story, like the Iraqis-threw-preemies-from-incubators crock put out by a Washington DC PR firm, was a "misstatement", as the same Bushies still call such things today.

Or a big, fat, loathesome lie.

Now, here in '01 the Bushies have created exceptions from the Freedom of Information Act. Lookee here, three years after that, they are using that questionably legal tactic to shut the hole in the wall of their fake universe that tripped them up 13 years ago: the presence of a camera.

They really don't like cameras, unless its in the hands of the police, taking YOUR picture when you dare to protest the Bushies in public.

If a third party places cameras in orbit, I guarantee they will threaten the owners into compliance with their demands, or they will reserve the right to blow them out of the sky.

This isn't flamebait. This is a scream. They are blindfolding us and gagging us, and they don't even bother to justify it. They just assume we won't care. And they are right.

Re:Inconvenient reality? Just say no!

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Fortuneatly the USA doesnt control all the satellites.

Maybe there is something up that the US doesn't want the world to see right now.

Over the last few days I have been trying to download various GIS data from US sources that are free to anyone. In these last few days, instead of receiving data, I've been receiving a simple webpage saying 'security alert, your request can not be processed at this time'. ... the hiding of geographic data from the public now goes much farther than just satellite images.

Re:Inconvenient reality? Just say no!

[Scott7477]

Who modded this to a 4? Regardless of whether there were any Iraqi troops at all massed at the Saudi-Iraqi border in 1990, there was a large Iraqi force in Kuwait which is very, very close to the Saudi border. Those Iraqis weren't on a road trip vacation...the inconvenient reality is that Catbeller appears just one of these knee-jerk leftists who doesn't understand where freedom comes from. In September 1990, Saddam's track record was that he had attacked Iran years before, and had just conquered Kuwait. Clearly he was looking for victims and given that Saudi Arabia had a weak military at the time and Iraq's military was considered the fourth most powerful in the world, it is extremely reasonable to presume that if left the opportunity Saddam would have made a grab for the Saudi territory. Get your freaking facts straight!!!

The Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

New American Century.. it only gets worse.

Terraserver going down?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://terraserver.microsoft.com

Haven't you all noticed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mapquest, Yahoo and the others no longer offer sattelite images of the maps they provide. They used to, but not anymore.

-IonOtter, who can't get his login, dammit.

The Question

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

The question is not:

'what does the USA not want the world to see?'

The question is:

'what does the USA not want its own people to see?'

This is all just part of the overall '1984' plan. You must be kept in the dark as to what your government is doing, otherwise you might wise up and do something stupid like create a peaceful world that is prosperous for everyone.

The dumbass americans will hurt their own GIS based industries far more than they realize, compared to ZERO gain in safety from 'terrorists'.

Want to know where you need to guide your homemade cruise missle to?

YOU DONT NEED A DAMN MAP, you just need to wander on up to the target with a $100 GPS unit and you've got coordinates good to 10m. Can't wander right up to it? ... take lots of readings and triangulate.

Indicative of larger more ominous problems?

[lelio98]

This law makes perfect sense to me...

1. The government purchases satellite time and or imagery for exclusive use via perfectly normal contractual methods.
2. John Doe submits FOIA request to government for image that the government paid extra money to ensure that it would be exculsive.
3. Government wastes money and has potential security breach via FOIA backdoor.

This law simply aims to close this one back door. Anyone who disagrees needs to RTFA. There are existing laws on the books limiting dissemination of satellite imagery (and for good reasons). It is these existing laws which contain the FOIA backdoor. The door simply needs to be shut.

The larger problem stated in the subject is one of appropriate security classifications and subsequent timeliness of declassification. It super easy to stamp "CLASSIFIED" or "SENSITIVE" when the item in question may not really be either.

Also, the article mentioned images from war-zones that were sufficiently aged as to question the appropriateness of maintaing any security classification. I think that there are many factors to consider other than simply, "The image is 2 months old, release it!". There is a great deal of information in aged imagery that could be had if one were diligent and intelligent enough to extract it. Take for example, and image of Baghdad that happens to have some tanks and HUMVEES in it and is 6 months old. Seems innocent enough, until you start looking at multiple images of the same or similar scenes. When enough small bits of information are available, the "enemy" could interpret troop movements, tactics, deployed strengths, etc...

That being said, an image from Afghanistan showing a sheep herd and a single transport truck on a dirt road from 3 years ago shouldn't be deemed "SECRET" because there is no small bits of 'intel' in it.

Re:Indicative of larger more ominous problems?

[fuzzybunny]

#2 John Doe submits FOIA request to government for image that the government paid extra money to ensure that it would be exculsive.

This would be perfectly correct if the government were anything but a PUBLICLY FUNDED ENTITY. "Competition" does not apply. It is your money, ffs.

Well, now we know...

[d474]

The US Gov't has finally realized the long chased after technology of "Nipple Resolution" from space.

The Gov't doesn't want to share it's pr0n!

Re:Unreal Already in ACTION!!!

[d474]

I filed for an FOIA for the latest satellite images of Hurricane Ivan. This is what they gave me.

_____ of the State

[Whizzmo2]

I have the odd urge to watch a certain Gene Hackman flick all of a sudden... :)

Yeah this is -1: Uninspired/Bloody Obvious. Mod me down if you dare.

blind the people

[samantha]

Blind the people lest they see what we don't want them to see.
Blind the people lest the few do something with what they see that is wrong.
Blind the people so the many cannot do even good without government license.
Blind the people to what their government does.
Blind the people to the world that could have been.
Blind the people, keep them in the dark and feed them only fear.

Delay release! Don't prevent it!

[0x0d0a]

Screw that -- I paid for the satellites. I want the imagery to be available when I need it (this is *not* a minor issue -- at one point in the past I had a project stopped because I couldn't obtain free satellite imagery). If the funds to take the pictures are coming out of my pocket, I'm not interested in the USG being able to prevent release of such data. National security issue with letting people know what we're interested in monitoring? Fine. Allow tagging specific data, with a justification (which must be released after five years, and requires the person requesting that the data be delayed to sign the justification) as "delayed". This would allow for a delay of three years or something on the data gathered before it's free under FOIA.

FOIA needs strengthening in general.

[SgtChaireBourne]

This attack on freedom is going on in other areas.

The Archivist of the United States was replaced by the Bush junta without any consultation with any professional organization of archivists or historians. Nor has the process been open for public discussion and input. The Archivist of the United States is responsible for NARA which has some of these responsibilities.

• Ensuring adequate documentation of the government's actions and decisions;
• Holding government officials and agencies accountable for public service;
• Safeguarding the rights and privileges of individual citizens as well as many groups and communities of interest in society; and
• Preserving the cultural heritage and historical memory of government for the best interests of all citizens.

All that data you once could get as a result of FOIA? Goobye to that. If it's shredded, burned degaussed or left to rot, it's not there to request. Even apathy can take its toll: physical media like tapes pass on to entropy in as little as 5 years as well as cheap CD-Rs. The data formats themselves are a separate matter.

This is a turn in the wrong direction as many expensive mistakes and scandals can be avoided by keeping decisions and data in daylight. Data, especially, has a strong economic benefit if it can be re-used without a lot of red tape.

Finland and Sweden have a good example in that the right to public information is part of their respective constitutions. In the case of Sweden this goes back to 1766. Historians might find some interesting analogies between today's situation with the U.S. and UK as compared with the situation in Sweden back then leading up to the change in the constitution.

Song quoters are lame

[Anonymous Coward]

You annoy me every time. Just link to the lyrics and be done with it.

What is the problem here?

[Jonathan_S]

Let me see if I understand this:

1) There exists a group or type of satellite pictures which the US government already prevents commercial satellite vendors from selling (except to the US government).*

2) Currently it is possible to submit a Freedom Of Information Act request for the government to provide you with a copy of these restricted satellite pictures.

3) Presumably the fact that they are legally prohibited from being sold would be sufficient basis to deny any current FOIA requests for them.

4) So now the government is exempting this specific type of satellite image from FOIA requests (which they wouldn't have fulfilled anyway).

So basically they are trying to skip the paper work of formally refusing each FOIA request because of content on a per request basis, and moving to being able to reject them automatically as a group based on this same content.

Why is this on Slashdot?

* If there is anything to be outraged about it is this point and not this latest change.

Re:Forget "conspiracy theory" this is damned obvio

[rthille]

It's obvious the terrorists have gotten to you! Won't you think about the children!?!?