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.
Software like Xplanet be effected too? I hope not.
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
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!!!
So... MS perhaps won't be happy about this... or do they care
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
---------
In the end we are ALL disconnected....
I'm sure there'll be plenty of commercial ones providing the data!
r yptome.org/dcgas/dcgas-eyeball.htmm e.org/kumsc-eyeball.htme n-eyeball.htme ball.htm
h ttp://cryptome.org/whrez/whrez-eyeball.htm
http://cryptome.org/gates-eyeball.htm
http://c
http://crypto
http://cryptome.org/dncp
http://cryptome.org/dcbnt/dcbnt-ey
http://cryptome.org/fleet-eyeball.htm
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.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
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.
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?).
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
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.
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?
-Derick
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?
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?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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."
--- We need more Ron Paul!
"These days, it's all secrecy, and no privacy."
- The Rolling Stones, "Fingerprint File", _It's Only Rock and Roll_
--
make install -not war
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!
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.
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".
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.
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.
-Randy
meant to post that with extrans...
</tinfoil hat>
----
This concludes our transmission to Oceania.
...more like, "We don't want everyone to see what we are doing."
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Of course! Must be Satellite in Cube! Dumbass! Even Time obey Cube! NASA is Stupid for not obey Cube design! Dumbass!
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
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).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
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.
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
Remember, in the war on terror "national security" trumps commen sense every time.
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.
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...
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?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
I do security
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!
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
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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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...
Carousel is a lie!
"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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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).
--Chag
Don't you remember what happened last time someone tried to file a FOI request? The Secret Service bullied him into cancelling it.
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
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.
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!
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
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.
Restricting what the public can see and access. Maintaining secret laws for secret reasons and defended in secret trials?
WHERE THE HELL ARE WE?!
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.
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
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
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!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
MAYBE.
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
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.
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.
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!!
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
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.
Because Bush doesn't want satellite images of his ranch getting out.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121082&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=153&mode=thread&cid=101 93804
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.
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."
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
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.
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.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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.
R(k)
I read somewhere (sorry, it's been a long time) that maps of varies soviet cities were downright inaccurate for "security reasons."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Heh, all stale.
Long signatures suck.
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.
eh, this sucks, I am going back to bed....
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.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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!
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
Exactly. Years ago (around 1996), one of the satpics (infrared) indicated an anomaly over North Korea.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The United Corporate States of America, where did you think? ;)
Capitol Hill, too.
How long before the terrorists look for targets by looking for blurs in the terraserver database?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
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.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
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?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.)
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?
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.:-)
The French have long sold their imagery. Not as good as free but you can still get your pictures.
"Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
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...
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.
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?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
>>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?
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
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.
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.
/. 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!
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
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.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
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..
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.
irb(main):001:0>
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.
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?
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The point is that schizophrenics shouldn't be allowed to make web sites.
My other first post is car post.
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...
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.
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.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
The question is not:
... take lots of readings and triangulate.
'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?
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
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.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
This law makes perfect sense to me...
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.
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!
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
I filed for an FOIA for the latest satellite images of Hurricane Ivan. This is what they gave me.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
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 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.
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.
May we never see th
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.
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.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
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.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
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.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
nahh they were carying ingredients for saddams chocolate chip factory
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.
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?
It's obvious the terrorists have gotten to you! Won't you think about the children!?!?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
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.
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.
----
This concludes our transmission to Oceania.
lol I hate it when that happens. I forget the extrans all the time.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.