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

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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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: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: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: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

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...

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: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: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...