Slashdot Mirror
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.
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!!!
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
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.
----
This concludes our transmission to Oceania.
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
Because it appears that will be "wartime" for a very long time?
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.
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?
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
War on Terror
War on Poverty
War on Internet Piracy
What exactly does 'only during wartime' mean these days?
Dyolf Knip
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
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...
Didn't you get the memo?
The US is at war right now. The US has always been at war.
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
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?
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.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
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.
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?
Restricting what the public can see and access. Maintaining secret laws for secret reasons and defended in secret trials?
WHERE THE HELL ARE WE?!
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".
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...