NOAA Requires License For Photos of the Earth

Teancum writes "In an interesting show of the level of regulations private spacecraft designers have to go through, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has demanded that American participants of the Google Lunar X Prize obtain a license if their spacecraft are 'capable of actively or passively sensing the Earth's surface, including bodies of water, from space by making use of the properties of the electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected, or diffracted by the sensed objects.' What prompted NOAA to ask for this license came from a visit by the XPrize staff to the NOAA offices in Maryland. What is going to happen when 'space tourists' bring their private cameras along for the ride?"

Comments

Absurd!

[vivaoporto]

As if RIAA and MPAA weren't enough, now this NOAA: Who's come next, AAA?

Re:Absurd!

[brxndxn]

As if RIAA and MPAA weren't enough, now this NOAA: Who's come next, AAA?

That's why I'm in AA.

Re:Absurd!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sir, you are not authorized to take pictures of that, you're stealing views!"

Re:Absurd!

[philspear]

What the heck is the NOAA going to do to stop me from taking pictures from my spaceship? Try and arrest me, I'm in space, bitches!!!

Re:Absurd!

[StatureOfLiberty]

Buried in the text is this statement: Small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote sensing space systems. So, whatever you do, don't use a tripod!

Re:Absurd!

[frosty_tsm]

What are you going to set the tripod on? There's no gravity!

Re:Absurd!

[philspear]

Not to make a valid point in a joke thread (clearly the NOAA is not going to worry about personal digicams) but you could bolt the tripod to your spaceship. Would be more stable than holding it or trying to push the button and let it go without making it rotate.

Re:Absurd!

[Yeorwned]

Triple A already fines you if you change your own tire under membership.

Re:Absurd!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm in ACA

Re:Absurd!

[Z00L00K]

I would tell the NOAA to go and do their job instead. Pictures on a certain occasion are useless out of context - and NOAA has probably more competition from other governments than private outfits.

I would like to see a case about this in court since I think NOAA will have a hard time making it stick.

Re:Absurd!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Hmmmm. I guess private organizations will just go launch, and develop, from other, hungrier countries that aren't so into lording over their own people.

Re:Absurd!

[coastwalker]

The US is going to wake up one day and find that the rest of the world would rather be friends with China. Very soon its going to make more economic sense in any case.

Re:Absurd!

[jasen666]

I'm trying to fathom why they think they own the sole rights to image the entire planet? Did all the countries on Earth collectively grant them this right?

Re:Absurd!

[MaxVT]

You might be up there for a while, but trust me, at the end you're going down.

Re:Absurd!

[xouumalperxe]

Yeah, no joke. My thought process actually went like this:

• Read the headline on google reader. Chuckled and joked to myself "oh look, another *AA, what silly demands are *they* making"
• Read the actual expansion for NOAA. Thought "Naaah, can't possibly be making stupid demands
• Finished reading the summary. "Oh, ok. Another proper *AA. *sigh*"

Re:Absurd!

[HTH NE1]

Would be more stable than holding it or trying to push the button and let it go without making it rotate.

Even my cell phone has an option for timed photo capture (5 or 10 second delay). That's enough time to stabilize in zero gee.

Re:Absurd!

[HTH NE1]

Maybe they have a trademark on Earth and are just aggressively defending it.

So far I don't have anything to worry about people infringing on my trademark of actual pictures of any part of the Universe as taken from inside any black hole's event horizon.

Re:Absurd!

[philspear]

Exactly how many times have you tried to do this?

Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[xmas2003]

Here's the letter from NOAA to the Lunar X participants that outlines how this is pursuent to the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 - says it may take up to 120 days to obtain the license - think about that before you take your first picure! ;-)

In the meantime, you can use existing satellite photos to image your house and here's a cool way to get a nifty Earth view.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Plazmid]

Well then, looks like the winner of the Lunar X Prize won't launch in the US, and probably won't start a business here either.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[ryanisflyboy]

Here is a link to the act itself:

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/15USCch82.html

It looks like the purpose is to protect the commercial interests of private space companies. If all the sudden people are launching rockets and giving away the data for free, that hurts space commerce. The goal here, again, is commercial. They want to create a commercial space enterprise. So while that sector is growing Uncle Sam is going to protect it.

Because they have a policy of being "nondiscriminatory" they have to either charge everyone, or charge no one.

However, one could argue that if your goal is non-commercial this wouldn't apply to you.

This policy probably had good intentions, but is now very out of date.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[anotherone]

What, really? Because it might take 4 months to get a permit? I bet that any potential space travel business will have more than a 4 month lead time from conception to launch.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It looks like the purpose is to protect the commercial interests of private space companies. If all the sudden people are launching rockets and giving away the data for free, that hurts space commerce. ... This policy probably had good intentions, but is now very out of date.

Saying "if other people make money doing X, we're going to pass a law preventing you from doing X for free" never has good intentions. It can only be a favor to existing commercial interests in return for their lining politicians' pockets.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[jcwayne]

I, for one, never welcomed our road to hell paving overlords.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[yndrd1984]

Saying "if other people make money doing X, we're going to pass a law preventing you from doing X for free" never has good intentions.

Of course it does! Outlawing designated drivers forces people to use taxis, which helps the economy. Only allowing only professional movers to take furniture in and out of houses prevents injuries to out-of-shape people. And of course, making every babysitter get registered as a state-certified child care provider would reduce the risk of harm to the children, and would also keep for-profit day cares in business, which means more jobs.

See, nothing but good intentions!

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[zippthorne]

Yeah, but you have to have the permit that takes 4 months to get, in order to get the other permit you need, that takes 6 months to get. It's not so bad, really, when you can get them all concurrently, but when you have to prove that you've done X before they'll let you do Y, and there's a chain of these things, and at any point, a capricious "civil servant" can put the brakes on anything because he's an ass..

Well, you can see how it takes a decade to start building a bridge or small port facility. Let alone a business involving huge energy expenditures and noise, and any number of dozens of things small minded curmudgeonly objectionists will latch onto.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, if you read the house bill, link
And the licensing section specificially says that it requires all to get a license to 1) Protect National Security 2)Require sharing of whatever data collected with the government 3-6) Keep track of your orbit/space junk/international laws.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Logic and Reason]

What's scary is that I can't tell if you're serious.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Plaid Phantom]

Welcome to politics.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[k33l0r]

I'd call that a broken window fallacy.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[tricorn]

Actually, the interest seems to be in PROMOTING it by making it available and regulating it so it is not a free-for-all, not "protecting it" it the way you're saying. There certainly needs to be SOME regulation, you don't want people sending up satellites in any-old-orbit, transmitting on any-old-frequency, shining laser lights down at your favorite observatory, or whatever...

Without such regulations, you'd be in a situation where they'd probably simply prohibit all such activities. Regulations like this are designed to PERMIT things to happen, while retaining enough control that it isn't chaotic. I didn't see any reference in the regulations to a fee for such a license.

The regulations in this part are intended to:
(1) Preserve the national security of the United States;
(2) Observe the foreign policies and international obligations of the United States;
(3) Advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining U.S. leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry;
(4) Promote the broad use of remote sensing data, their information products and applications;
(5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate;
(6) Ensure that remotely sensed data are widely available for civil and scientific research, particularly environmental and global change research; and
(7) Maintain a permanent comprehensive U.S. government archive of global land remote sensing data for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global environment.

As for the space tourist taking along a camera, that's not "remote sensing".

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Anonymous Coward]

What business do governments have in interfering with private individuals taking pictures from space or anywhere else for that matter. NOAA does not own the earth, and is in no position to decide which 'big wealthy hoggish' business it is going to make a winner of simply by denying ordinary people their civil rights. Suppose one gets on an AeroFlot plane on an international flight that takes off from Chicago and takes pictures all the way to NYC. Who has the ownership and copyright for Cleveland, Howard the Duck? Doubt the freedom loving Russian stewardesses will object.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[rronda]

I wonder what is the working definition of space ... Some satellites operate within the earth atmosphere and do in fact sense the earth from the atmosphere. What is the height at which one should obtain the license? Images from a plane are fine? a photo camera is nothing more than a sensing device operating in the visible part of the spectra ...

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[yndrd1984]

Fallacy!?!?! That's the entire basis of my country's economic policy!

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Anonymous Coward]

The term for this is "rent seeking".

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the space tourist taking along a camera, that's not "remote sensing"

I beg to differ. From the summary:

actively or passively sensing the Earth's surface, including bodies of water, from space by making use of the properties of the electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected, or diffracted by the sensed objects

What's a photograph if not the passive sensing of reflected light, which of course is a very specific band of EM waves? And if that photo is from space, then it's damn well remote, isn't it?

I can understand the desire to prevent active sensing, for the sorts of reasons you mentioned, but passive? All you're doing is observing.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Paul server guy]

Well then, looks like the winner of the Lunar X Prize won't launch in the US, and probably won't start a business here either.

It looks like we will move to Canada. Between things like this and the other ITARds, there's just no reason to do it in the US. I hope the Canadian law isn't as bad as US law.

Note to the other teams though, you will need to follow the law (of all team member jurisdictions.) or you can not win the GLXP money, which is part of why we will not become a GLXP team. We are doing this on our own, in the open. www.openluna.org

Yes, we are just starting, and could use some help in the art/web department.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[ctetc007]

Don't you know that by taking a picture, you're sucking out the soul of the Earth. Besides, this light could've gone off into the universe, or at least the other side of the cabin or into someone's eyes and their brain, but no, you had to suck up this light and put it inside a camera.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[mark-t]

Read the text of the act in full. Small, handheld cameras are explicitly exempt from being considered remote sensing systems.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[tricorn]

Remote. Remote. Remote. Remote. Damn, you even quoted me saying "remote" and ignored it. Guess what a person taking a picture isn't. Remote! Guess what the regulations regulate. Remote!

Guess what the regulations regarding manned space flight aren't going to cover. Remote! Yes, they'll probably put in requirements regarding using high-powered telescopes from space and what you can and can't do with them, but guess what won't be restricted. Your point-and-shoot Canon, that's for sure...

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[tricorn]

Let's see, you know that you can't even apply for a launch permit until you've got the remote sensing license in your hands? Where'd you find that out, and what reason do you have to believe that "a capricious civil servant" is going to be an ass and try to stop you and that you won't have any recourse if that should happen? What, did you fail a driving test after offering a beer to the examiner?

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[TapeCutter]

Yes, the knee-jerk reaction seems to be "license == BadThing(TM)" or maybe "Govt. steals PRIVATE data" but without laws specifiying that certain clauses must be included in the license we would be left with the default copyright laws which I think most people here would agree are unacceptable for trashy romance novels let alone unique raw data sets concerning our home planet. Perhaps private companies in the mold of Disney would decline to take part becuse they have to share data about our planet, but IMHO that's a GoodThing(TM). It also reduces the burden on the taxpayer if private consortiums are forced to share scientific data, the only downside I can think of is the double edged sword of "national security" (control people vs share data).

As far as space exploration goes the worst thing that has happened recently is this obvious attempt to silence the most powerfull tool available for montoring the biosphere. Maybe it's non-obvious that in govt budgets, funding is tied directly to the agency's "mission statement", or maybe I have my tinfoil hat on too tight and NOAA/NASA budgets are not related? Anyway, since I'm not an american taxpayer I can hardly complain about the informative freebies NOAA/NASA already provides, and I admire Hansen as both a scientist and a public servant willing to "speak truth to power".

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[zippthorne]

If 95% of civil servants are dedicated, but overworked, and you've got a chain-of-permits ten-deep, you've got a very good chance (>40%) of running into at least one who cares more about his little tin fiefdom than about the people trying to actually accomplish something.

Are those numbers unreasonable? I certainly hope so.

Nevertheless, every regulatory hurdle is one more opportunity for someone to use the letter of the law to bully people.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[tricorn]

Well, your math is correct, but your numbers are suspect. Where'd you come up with 95% and a chain of 10 permits that you have to apply for one at a time?

Look, I'm a flight instructor, I've dealt with the FAA quite a bit, and for the most part they are dedicated people who really are out to serve the public. Occasionally you get an idiot, but most of the problems come from higher up, not with the "civil servants" you seem intent on bashing. From all accounts I've heard, NOAA people are not just mindless bureaucrats, but people interested in their field and work.

I think the people bitching about this are going to look awfully foolish when the permits start being approved for those groups that apply for them (I didn't check to see how long the licensing period is for, it may not even make sense to apply for this until they're a lot closer to launch).

BTW, with most permit situations where you need multiple permits/licenses, you usually get the approval process rolling on all of them at once; where there are prerequisites, most agencies I've dealt with can issue a permit/license that says "valid only with xxxx permit from xxxx agency" or whatever. You don't have to get one first, then get the next one, then the next one. Heck, for a flight instructor license, you need to have a commercial pilot's license. It isn't uncommon to get both of them on the same checkride. To take the knowledge exam (formerly known as the "written"), all you need is an instructor's authorization, and it's good for a year after that. So, you're getting close to the required hours for a commercial rating, you take the commercial and instructor knowledge exams, you go up for a checkride, and you come down with a new commercial license and instructor's license. Nobody requires you to get your commercial rating before you can take the instructor exams, heck, you can take the exams before you even get a STUDENT license.

So unless you have applications for all of the relevant permits and licenses you'd need to make a space launch, sitting there in your hands, and you can quote to me the sections where each says you can't send in the application until you've received other permits, you're just making stuff up. Four month lead time on a space launch simply doesn't sound like that big of a deal, what, you were planning on launching next weekend, maybe, and forgot to apply? Hmm, I'm not so sure I want you launching anywhere near me if you're that careless!

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[pablochacin]

No, no because of this minor issue, but because it is getting absurdly difficult to make business in USA. Now days, with all those "security" regulations and patent issues, it it easier and less risky to introduce prohibited item in a federal jail than do a legal business in the USA. Now, figure out were investors are heading to for new business.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[coastwalker]

My small hand held camera has an astronomical telescope attached to the front of it and could probably image your street from space.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Yvanhoe]

What if I have a business plan that is based on the premise that space-based imagery is freely available ? Do I get protection too ?
This kind of regulations effectively freezes the market at one technological state. Imagine I want to create a company that sells an analysis of satelite imagery interpreted as traffic informations on a whole country. If I can sell them for a small fee, people like Yahoo will publish them freely in order to increase traffic, other companies may become very reliant on this information (like small scale transport companies) making them more competitive due to more effective route planning.
If a silly regulation says that these images can not be given for free, I'll have to make people pay more for these informations, and probably won't be able to find that much clients.

When something becomes free, short-sighted people think that jobs and business are destroyed. However, when something becomes free, it usually creates a lot of business opportunities that were simply impossible before.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[SEWilco]

Here a picture of the road to hell. It runs through that building. Looks like a sub-orbital photo, and in 1921 I doubt the proper license was acquired.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Teancum]

At the moment, I would have to agree with you. The "state of the art" with launching spacecraft has been several months or even years of lead time.

But the day will come, mark my words, that the technical capability of sending up a spacecraft with just a day's advance notice will come.

I certainly don't require a 4 month lead time from conception to "launch" if I go down to a nearby airport and to purchase a ticket to nearly any place on the planet. The reason I might have any delay from taking the next available flight has strictly to do with silly government regulations (missing a passport, security checkpoints, etc.) rather than anything which an airline would necessarily require.

I can and have even negotiated with a private pilot (aka no "business" was yet established other than normal FAA licensing requirements to fly the plane) to act as a courier for a package that had to beat FedEx. You certainly don't need a commercial airline in order to be a paying passenger in an airplane, although it does tend to be a bit cheaper.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[cangrejoinmortal]

... So while that sector is growing Uncle Sam is going to protect it...

oh, that nasty old man again.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[mark-t]

That's fine... but taking the notion of "hand-held" literally, that is, that it's being held in somebody's hands, if you just try to install such a camera into a satellite with nobody actually holding the camera while it orbits the Earth taking pictures, how is it still qualifying? Although I suppose if somebody is up there with it and holding it in their hands at the time they take the pictures, it should certainly be exempt. Once space tourism becomes popular enough that there's more people than satellites taking pictures of the earth, the pointlessness of the act will be apparent even to the body that originated it and it will probably disappear forever.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Teancum]

What section is it that explicitly exempts small handheld cameras? I don't see it at all, and I'm reading the actual law that governs this policy.

I'm asking for section and subsection, such as Section 201(a) of the "Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992".

Indeed, it would seem to me, after reading the law, that NOAA requires you to send them a copy of all of the photos that you take after you have brought that equipment up into space, in addition to the license itself.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[GNT]

You do understand do you not that there should BE NO PERMIT PROCESS WHATSOEVER RIGHT? That it is LUDICrous in the extreme to demand a license/permit to photograph the Earth under ANY set of conditions right? That all of this is nothing but a control sham so that Uncle Sam's dirty secret laundry won't be revealed to the populance?

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[mark-t]

Section 960.3. Under the definition of Remote Sensing Space System.

Wow

[jrwr00]

Um, Wow i didnt think you could copyright THE EARTH.. What next? The Moon!

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Me own all rights to moon! Pay up or get off my rock! Kids these days...

Re:Wow

[dattaway]

Um, Wow i didnt think you could copyright THE EARTH.. What next? The Moon!

I'm sorry, but the Moon is a registered trademark according to the USPTO. Seriously. 9482 entries with "Moon"

Re:Wow

[Man On Pink Corner]

M-O-O-N, that spells Pepsi®!

Re:Wow

[OriginalArlen]

You can't; if it was a copyright issue, (a) they'd be laughed out of court, but (b) they could in theory try to make it apply to teams located in any country that's signed the Berne Convention. Which they're not. It's just the Americans they're pulling this bullshit on.

Re:Wow

[sumdumass]

Actually, almost all countries with a space program have a similar rule/law. They want to know who is taking images of potentially secrete spots like military bases or missile silos and what they will be used for. Almost all commercial satellites had to go through this too. The 1992 law is just the recent carnation of it. The previous act which was in 1984 or so maintained that the government owned all private satellites with these capabilities and held the potential to censor images. Before the 1984 act, there wasn't to many commercial satellites with this capability.

This is actually part of the import/export controls on technology (ITAR). Any company under US jurisdiction wanting to mess with a satellite or anything going into space has to deal with it. It isn't hard to do but it does require time and a little amount of effort. The reason NOAA contacted participants of the Google Xprize program is because they didn't seem to be aware of it. But any launch authorization will require a statement to these capabilities and if present, a permit of any part of the company is connected to US jurisdiction.

I imagine as private space flight and tourism becomes more available, the laws will be changed someone to make it a: more apparent and b: to accommodate new demands from these flights and their passengers.

Re:Wow

[Zadaz]

I'm sorry, but the Moon is a registered trademark according to the USPTO. Seriously. 9482 entries with "Moon"

Though to be fair most of those are innovative new ways to drop your pants. The rest are owned by the Chattanooga Bakery for it's chocolate dipped gram cracker and marshmallow snacks.

Re:Wow

[atraintocry]

The real bitch about international law is that there isn't any force behind it besides treaties. And hell, this is almost interplanetary, so where's the jurisdiction?

Oh yeah, Lunar X. And they probably have to at least try to enforce this, so that the participants' crafts don't get shot out of the air. This seems to be might-means-right (we can and will stop you if you don't follow the rules) as opposed to any particular goverment's actual power to stop citizens' equipment from taking pictures *once they've left the goddam planet*. Just sayin'.

Re:Wow

[Deli Korkmaz]

And how high up to you have to be before you're in what constitutes space for the purposes of this? Is a picture from an airplane ok? What if the airplane were a Concorde? (Yeah, I know they're grounded, indulge me...)

Re:Wow

[tftp]

I read quite a few some science fiction novels where Earth bureaucracy attempted to extend its reach way beyond the planet, even to a spaceship that is on its way to another star. So basically the bureaucracy will always take all it can get away with, and will be claiming more power next time around.

Re:Wow

[sumdumass]

The problem is that they are still citizens. They didn't lose that when they left the planet. They are still under the competent jurisdiction of the US or whatever country and this law. Also, while they are on the planet, the country can control when they "lift off" which sort of foils any "your not the boss of me" arguments.

I personally don't see it as a problem. Just a nuisance at best.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to know who is taking images of potentially secrete spots like military bases or missile silos and what they will be used for

The majority of military bases in the US don't have particularly restrictive airspace (usually class D). I just looked up 3 bases on skyvector.com, only Groom Lake, AKA Area 51, was in restricted airspace, in fact, it did not even appear as a marked airport on the chart. Another was a major air force base, and the third was a nuclear missile base. Both of these had class D airspace, meaning a pilot is only required to contact Air Traffic Control before entering, he does not need explicit permission. It is also possible to fly above the ceiling of the airspace and not even need to contact ATC. It would be far easier, less expensive, more effective and less noticeable for anyone so inclined to gather such pictures to take sight seeing flight that passed nearby or even overhead of a base.

Re:Wow

[wronskyMan]

True - many bases actually do have restricted areas, however those are usually for ranges (either artillery that could pose a hazard to aircraft or air combat training areas such as the red flag ranges near Nellis - when you are flying at 200 AGL and 500 knots you don't want Joe Cessna trucking along unnoticed).

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easily solved, then. Use the image of the Earth as part of a cryptography routine that is open source. Open source cryptography is exempt from ITAR, by ITAR's own rules. Not my fault if everyone then rips out the data segment and interprets it as an image file.

Re:Wow

[cheater512]

I dont see why they bother.
The people who they want to keep that stuff secret from (other countries) dont have to obey the rules, and already have the pics they want.

Not too many other people are interested in secret military bases other than just plain curiosity.

Re:Wow

[mysidia]

The problem is that they are still citizens. They didn't lose that when they left the planet. They are still under the competent jurisdiction of the US or whatever country and this law.

So relocate them to another country that doesn't have these type of laws, before lift off.

And the laws of their home country will have no jurisdiction over the company formed in the other country.

Re:Wow

[atraintocry]

I think the larger issue is that (ideally) you can't rule where you don't have jurisdiction. In practice, yeah, if you enjoy your citizenship, then you have to shut up and get in line. Someone said it was like a land grab, I tend to agree.

Re:Wow

[negRo_slim]

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy.

Re:Wow

[sumdumass]

You have to remember that these laws were made back when satellites weren't common outside of military applications. the '92 law was an attempt to acknowledge a commercial, non-governmental role of satellites.

The Eu didn't exist at the time but they also didn't have a space program to speak of. China and India had nothing worth talking about, Japan was the furthest along and these laws actually addressed using Japan to launch. Don't think like today is the way it was 15 years ago or even 30 years ago. Take the situation into the perspective of the time they were implemented. They havn't change because there really wasn't a need to change until now. And I'm not sure the need is high on anyones priority lists.

Re:Wow

[sumdumass]

Sure. Give up citizenship and no hope of returning as a citizen.

I doubt that would happen in many cases, but it is an option. BTW, if your launching like that, you can't have your company located or doing business in the US either. Your limiting quite a few things.

Re:Wow

[sumdumass]

It might be like a land grab. But as far as I can tell, it really isn't anything too overly broad that can't be dealt with. This entire idea of attempting to escape the jurisdiction is nonsense in my opinion.

This is especially true when you look at all the maritime laws out there where US jurisdiction actually protects the vehicle covered by it. I guess there is just too many facets to this for an average geek to understand without spending a lot of time on it. As for protections, I know the US navy has the power to use deadly force to protect any vessel being harmed by another nation when the vessel is commissions under US law and flies the US flag. That is something common from a lot of countries too. It really isn't too far of a stretch to take that from a ship on the open sea to a ship traveling through space.

They sort of took that theme with the NCC-1701 or better known as USS Enterprise in the Star Trek series. Of course they called is a federation ship but it was commissioned under the United States as it was built in the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth and launched in 2245 or something like that. I hope I didn't go too far off track here.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I don't think my Nikon P3 8,1 megapixel camera has the power to zoom in from orbit and take detailed pictures of military installations. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I can understand restricting the power/resolution of cameras, but casual photos from space using readily available consumer grade digital cameras poses absolutely no threat to any government on the face of the earth. This reasoning is pure and utter bullcrap.

generically speaking,
johnnygeneric

Re:Wow

[nasor]

Actually, almost all countries with a space program have a similar rule/law. They want to know who is taking images of potentially secrete spots like military bases or missile silos and what they will be used for.

I would think that the government would simply assume that other governments are ALWAYS trying to spy on them with satellites, and plan accordingly.

Re:Wow

[sumdumass]

And what makes you think this isn't part of their original planning already? You have to remember that at the time these laws were put in place, the US, Russia, and Japan were the only countries with the capabilities to put a satellite into orbit. You also have to remember that most military bases in the US or any other country has been around a lot longer then any thoughts of a practical satellite image.

The sites might not just be military in concept either. It could be mines or any sorts of things that the governments don't have control over.

Re:Wow

[hcdejong]

In other words, "that's no moon"?

Re:Wow

[Teancum]

Interestingly, the actual text of the law seems to indicate that this may have been intended only for spacecraft launched on government vehicles. For example, Section 205(a) states:

A private sector party may apply for a license to operate a private remote sensing space system which utilizes, on a space-available basis, a civilian United States Government satellite or vehicle as a platform for such system.

Applying for a license from NOAA on a government satellite in this context makes total sense. You should ask permission if you are going to "piggyback" some of your components on a government vehicle.

What isn't clear in the text of the law is what this means if the launch vehicle is privately owned as well as the spacecraft. Other sections of this same law seem to ignore this sentiment and simply require all civilians to gain permission "from the Secretary" of Commerce.

I think it is more the concept that nobody in 1992 thought that a private individual could possibly get into space on their own without some sort of government assistance footing at least part of the bill.

Re:Wow

[Nazlfrag]

Why renounce citizenship? He only mentioned the company going offshore, not the employees. Also, what would stop a former national from doing business with the US after renouncing citizenship? Owning a company I can see, but how are you unable to do business?

Re:Wow

[sumdumass]

Nothing would stop the former national from doing business.

The problem is that the US retains jurisdiction over citizens regardless of where they are. This law specifically detailed US jurisdiction in the enforcement coverage. So if a US citizen went to Europe and built then launched a rocket with these capabilities, they would still have to comply with this law or face it's penalties.

Sections 5622 of this law says

(a) License required for operation
No person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States may, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate, operate any private remote sensing space system without a license pursuant to section 5621 of this title.

As you can see, any US citizen, any company or person under competent US jurisdiction, and any combination of the two including companies, are subject to this. Just because you leave the country, doesn't mean that your not subject to the laws. Often violations of laws are left to the jurisdiction in which they were violated/used but if your a US citizen, You still have requirements for taxes and so on. Murder in international waters (no clear jurisdiction) can still be prosecuted and so on. If you are prosecuted for the crime in the jurisdiction of the other country, whether you are convicted or released, that puts the double jeopardy in place and bars US prosecution though.

The only way to completely escape US jurisdiction is to renounce citizenship and goto an area outside their jurisdiction and not do business with any company, aircraft, ships, and so on that have connections the the US. Oh yea, you also can't commit a crime against a US national either. That is an awful high price to pay for something that is more of a formality then anything. It also pretty mush preclude anyone from participating in anything Google or any other US company is part of.

What will happen?

[The Man]

Well, in order to understand what will happen with this sort of thing, one first needs to understand why so many banks are headquartered in Bermuda, Macao, Jersey, and Guernsey and why shipping companies are so often headquartered in the Marshall Islands. Once you understand that, you'll know the outcome of US policy on private space travel.

Re:What will happen?

[urcreepyneighbor]

If Cuba ever gets its act together, it could become the hub of private space.

Re:What will happen?

[simonbp]

Which is precisely why the current front-runner (Odyssey Moon) is based on the Isle of Man, despite being a mainly US/Canadian team...

Simon ;)

Naming rights

[Enderandrew]

That's the Budweiser Moon© now, they paid for the naming rights.

Re:Naming rights

[KGIII]

Actually Rolling Rock wants to put ads on the moon but that may well be a joke. http://moonvertising.com/

Re:Naming rights

[Tassach]

Heinlein had that idea in 1949. It's a recurring plot point in The Man Who Sold The Moon.

Re:Naming rights

[Wo1ke]

SHIT! Belgium owns the moon too!?

Re:Naming rights

[houghi]

Now you will soon know what the Belgian-Brazilian plan actualy is.

Re:Naming rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: It's the Inbev moon

Re:Naming rights

[Tolkien]

I would hope so, given the title. :)

On what grounds...

[Anonymous Coward]

... do they claim this ?

Re:On what grounds...

[fastest fascist]

Presumably it's a case of "because-we-can".

Re:On what grounds...

[megaditto]

National Security.

Re:On what grounds...

[fastest fascist]

Same thing.

Secrecy to the nth absurd

[twatter]

The Space sensing act of when??

Is the US government the only entity that can image the planet from orbit?

What, are they scared I might take a photo of the aliens in Area51?

And what if I'm snapping away at Africa? Australia?

Do I go to jail or what??

Ridiculous.

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[taniwha]

just so long as it isn't Israel - half the act seems to have to do with there

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not ridiculous at all.
when you think about it, taking a photo of the earth from space isn't (conceptually) any different from walking into a store a stealing a CD.

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[twatter]

But this 'law' applies only to US citizens. Does it not? I understand that from the article.

I don't think the NOAA sent release forms to be signed by Soviet cosmonauts.

I took a little bit time to read the regulation (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.R.6133.ENR:).

It seems this is really not that bad in the sense that it controls access to space-generated data (from weather satellites fr example).

But it also seesm that it's a regulation that is being taken to the nth degree simply because it's there and it never predicted civialan space exploration.

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[twatter]

You seem to be obsessed by jews (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=622621&cid=24298709)

But most likely you are a troll that uses racism as a tool.

And badly at that.

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[failedlogic]

After all, illegally distributing CDs from Space would be the equivalent of having 1,000,000,000 CD burners. Don't ask how I obtained this estimate. The RIAA doesn't know how it gets their either!

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[MacTO]

Well, I think it would be rather obvious if someone made a 50 km wide telescope in order to read that Earth-bound CD from the Moon.

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[TooMuchToDo]

*whoosh*

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[cparker15]

This made me LOL. Which caused me to get looks from coworkers. Now they're going to report me for slacking off. I'm going to get fired, thanks to you.

You're a job thief!

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

A fake twitter criticising a fake twitter sockpuppet, really this has gone too far.

Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992

[Bananatree3]

This is because Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 and its implementing regulations require any person subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States who operates or proposes to operate a private remote sensing space system that images the Earth, and/or establishes substantial connections with the United States regarding the operation of such a system to obtain a license from NOAA.

Blame this, the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992

Re:Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

I actually remember this Act being passed - Flight International ran several articles about it, back in the days when they had worthwhile spaceflight coverage. I think Tim Furniss was their spaceflight correspondent at the time.

The Act had several goals. Prior to 1992 there was no straightforward oversight of US-operated remote sensing systems. There was a terrible hullabaloo about Landsat, which required all sorts of regulatory exceptions and special handling, not only for its on-orbit ops but also for the radio links ( FCC was also involved ). The Act was intended to simplify the application for authorisation.

The Act was also intended to make the USA an attractive base for remote sensing operations, thereby retarding the advance of technology in the rest of the World. Again, this was to be achieved by providing a clear regulatory framework to avoid ambiguity and encouraging the dissemination of approved imagery as a US commercial advantage.

Finally, of course, there were the ``security'' considerations. The military didn't make too much of this, considering that at that very point in time they were buying Kometa imagery from the Russians ( they used Soviet / Russian photos of Washington to plan Dolittle's funeral )

And this

[Bananatree3]

Here's the direct language of the bill

It's a privacy thing.

[Shaitan Apistos]

I can totally understand this, If my Florida was flapping in the breeze I wouldn't want people taking snapshots either.

Re:It's a privacy thing.

[Tablizer]

If my Florida was flapping in the breeze I wouldn't want people taking snapshots either.

Cover up that thing with some Bermuda Shorts, will ya? And stay away from Banger Maine.
     

Re:It's a privacy thing.

[sconeu]

You could at least wear a New Jersey, too.

Re:It's a privacy thing.

[rk]

If I have to keep putting on more clothes, I'll eventually be washingtons of laundry.

This is actually for real

[Steve1952]

This is actually for real. See:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c1029W3AOE:e25773:

SEC. 202. CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION.

(a) LICENSE REQUIRED FOR OPERATION- No person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States may, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate, operate any private remote sensing space system without a license pursuant to section 201.

(b) LICENSING REQUIREMENTS- Any license issued pursuant to this title shall specify that the licensee shall comply with all of the requirements of this Act and shall--

(1) operate the system in such manner as to preserve the national security of the United States and to observe the international obligations of the United States in accordance with section 506;

(2) make available to the government of any country (including the United States) unenhanced data collected by the system concerning the territory under the jurisdiction of such government as soon as such data are available and on reasonable terms and conditions;

(3) make unenhanced data designated by the Secretary in the license pursuant to section 201(e) available in accordance with section 501;

(4) upon termination of operations under the license, make disposition of any satellites in space in a manner satisfactory to the President;

(5) furnish the Secretary with complete orbit and data collection characteristics of the system, and inform the Secretary immediately of any deviation; and

(6) notify the Secretary of any agreement the licensee intends to enter with a foreign nation, entity, or consortium involving foreign nations or entities.

Re:This is actually for real

[baby_robots]

It seems like it would be hard to enforce jurisdiction in space when we don't even have jurisdiction 10 miles off our coastline.

Re:This is actually for real

[juiceboxfan]

It seems like it would be hard to enforce jurisdiction in space when we don't even have jurisdiction 10 miles off our coastline.

Not sure what you mean by that. Like most other countries we have full control of the waters up to 12 nautical miles of the coast and limited control 200 miles out.

Re:This is actually for real

[evil_aar0n]

My response? See figure one.

http://www.things.org/~jym/fun/see-figure-1.html

Re:This is actually for real

[Anonymous Coward]

Look no further than sex tourism. In short, the only thing the US cares about is whether you (or your assets) are accessible to them. That's all the "jurisdiction" they feel they need. Just remember that if you go to Europe and drink (underage, by US standards) or smoke pot. Or kill various civilians (unless you're under US governmental contract).

Re:This is actually for real

[evilviper]

It seems like it would be hard to enforce jurisdiction in space

The law doesn't apply to space. The law applies to you, on the ground, before you send anything up there.

If you have a space craft that is unable to take photos (so it doesn't fall under this law), but then, in space, it is upgraded to include that capability, THEN you'd have a case for jurisdictional exclusion. When you want to launch a craft, from the US, that can take pictures from the get-go, then you're violating this law.

The flip side of this would be the "sex tourism" laws, that make it illegal to leave the country with an intent to have sex with under-aged kids in other countries, where such things are perfectly legal. Presumably, the law wouldn't apply if you went for a vacation, and just decided, while you were there, to solicit the services of an under-aged hooker.

Re:This is actually for real

[Steneub]

If I understand this correctly, the way the bill is written, the word "space" is not defined. Technically, I could be fined for photographing anything that has weather in it. One of the requirements of the license, if granted one, is providing trajectory data and timestamps of photos.

What if I were to stuff their inbox with submissions and impressive looking ballistic calculations of timestamps and weather observed as well as coordinates of my last family reuninion at the city park? Just forge the license number and submit all data.

Of course I'm being facetious, but it's a dumb law - I think I'm obligated to mock it.

Re:This is actually for real

[straponego]

I expect that soon they'll declare that US territory extends infinitely into space in an America-shaped cone originating at the center of the Earth. That's essentially how the Arctic circle is being divvied up. Egghead minutia such as the rotation of the Earth will not deter the people writing the laws.

Re:This is actually for real

[fire5ign]

(a) LICENSE REQUIRED FOR OPERATION- No person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States may, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate, operate any private remote sensing space system without a license pursuant to section 201.

But it's not "remote" if I'm in the spacecraft taking the photos.

Re:This is actually for real

[harlows_monkeys]

It seems like it would be hard to enforce jurisdiction in space when we don't even have jurisdiction 10 miles off our coastline

They aren't asserting jurisdiction over space. They are asserting jurisdiction over what US citizens do in space.

Governments have jurisdiction over both the territory they control and over their citizens. That's why, for example, if you were to move to Europe, but retain US citizenship, the US would have jurisdiction to tax your income, even though you earned it outside the US.

Completely Ridiculous

[Jane Q. Public]

This is so utterly ridiculous that I lack words to describe my reaction.

It's not copyright... but it acts like copyright. Sort of.

For the second time in two days, all I can say is: what a crock.

Re:Completely Ridiculous

[Chaos Incarnate]

It has nothing to do with copyright. The NOAA is a regulatory agency similar to the FCC or the FAA: there to make life more difficult for everybody, while doing nothing useful in the process.

Re:Completely Ridiculous

[Jane Q. Public]

Quote: "It's not copyright... but it acts like copyright."

Did you bother to read?

Re:Completely Ridiculous

[Chaos Incarnate]

I did. Acting like copyright would mean that they would own your pictures. This is a license to take them, much like you're required to get a license if you want to broadcast in the EM spectrum outside of a certain reserved range.

Re:Completely Ridiculous

[Jane Q. Public]

Since it is a license, it is like they are licensing you the ability to take photographs of already copyrighted works. That is how it is like a copyright.

In fact we both have good points, so please don't nitpick further.

Re:Completely Ridiculous

[Chaos Incarnate]

With that explanation of what you meant, I see your point, so I shan't. :)

It's fairly obvious to this AC...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that these regulations are a security measure to prevent amateur space photographers from snapping pics of Area 51 and the like, and then selling those photos to various interested parties and national governments.

Re:It's fairly obvious to this AC...

[Tablizer]

...that these regulations are a security measure to prevent amateur space photographers from snapping pics of Area 51 and the like, and then selling those photos to various interested parties and national governments.

I thought men in black come into your home at 3am and pixelate all your space photos.
     

Re:It's fairly obvious to this AC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no other country in the world has satellites in space, nope.

Close your eyes!

[Anonymous Coward]

That would seem to include eyesight. I guess everyone will need to fly blind.

OK, who gave them copyright of the earth?

[spike1]

Whatever happened to limited copyright?
The earth is BILLIONS of years old, and the only justification anyone could possibly have that it was still in copyright would be if they tried to claim the creator was still alive...

But if that were the case, they still wouldn't own the copyrights... Which-ever one of the religions that got it RIGHT would.

Re:OK, who gave them copyright of the earth?

[emilper]

What about the lifespan of the Creator ? Isn't it unfair to have His copyright expire while He is still alive ?

At least He is a person, not a corporation ... even if it seems there are quite a few corporations competing to be His legal mandatories on Earth.

Now that NOAA got religion, I'm waiting for reactions from the other monotheistic Churches.

Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Get it? Obtain a license... That's hilarious. It is, isn't it? That's a joke, right?

And people wonder why...

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world is nowadays inclined to treat american laws with a huge "fuck you".

Seriously, the russians (already doing it) and - god help us all - the british (virgin) are the ones already strongly involved in private space tourism. America sucks so much these days.

Re:And people wonder why...

[pcolaman]

Well, if you don't like this law, don't blame it on the current lawmakers. It was instituted during Clinton's time in office (and possibly started while Bush 41 was in office). If "America sucks so much these days," then where were all of the people bitching about this law 10+ years ago?

Re:And people wonder why...

[ZigMonty]

When did he mention bush? Not every criticism of america is a criticism of bush, some are, you know, criticisms of america.

Re:And people wonder why...

[Free the Cowards]

Do you seriously think that Britain and Russia have better regulatory environments? I bet they both have carbon copies of this bill, and many other stupid requirements besides. The US is hardly special in the "you need a permit" department. In fact it's better than most, in most areas.

Re:And people wonder why...

[pcolaman]

Did I say Bush? I said Lawmakers (referring to Congress). Who, by the way, have a much lower approval rating than Bush, because they have much more power over affecting our everyday lives than the POTUS. But I'll give you an E for effort for at least trying to read my post before replying.

NOAA needs new calendars

[JavaBear]

The ones they have now are obviously faulty, 1 April isn't due for another 8 months.

Definition of 'land remote sensing'

[ribit]

Definition 5 from the regulations: "The term 'land remote sensing' means the collection of data which can be processed into imagery of surface features of the Earth from an unclassified satellite or satellites, other than an operational United States Government weather satellite." It appears to only apply to 'satellites'?

Re:Definition of 'land remote sensing'

[Mateorabi]

So as long as your orbital trajectory intersects a space body (earth, moon, sun, etc.) you are OK? You are also OK if you have reached escape velocity? Any other trajectory is in orbit arround something in the solar system and hence a satellite of that something. Also, I guess no pictures from the moon, which is a natrual and (one would hope) unclassified satellite of earth.

Re:Definition of 'land remote sensing'

[Pig Hogger]

Definition 5 from the regulations: "The term 'land remote sensing' means the collection of data which can be processed into imagery of surface features of the Earth from an unclassified satellite or satellites, other than an operational United States Government weather satellite." It appears to only apply to 'satellites'?

Well, if you jump and take a picture while in freefall, you need a licence because you are a satellite. Don't forget that your orbit happens to intersect the surface of the Earth...

Re:Definition of 'land remote sensing'

[ribit]

Hmmm.. My apartment is orbiting the sun.. Is it a satellite?

Re:Definition of 'land remote sensing'

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything in orbit around another body (e.g. the Earth) is a satellite of that object.

Re:Definition of 'land remote sensing'

[Bones3D_mac]

Technically, any object that maintains a position in an orbit could be classified as a "satellite"... including the moon itself.

Re:Definition of 'land remote sensing'

[aug24]

So anything on a ballistic trajectory is fine, but US citizens better not stay at any Space Hotels!

NOAA claiming ownership?

[bobwrit]

So, NOAA's claiming ownership over the entire earth now. Other Countries aren't going to be happy about this....

Re:NOAA claiming ownership?

[Tablizer]

So, NOAA's claiming ownership over the entire earth now. Other Countries aren't going to be happy about this....

Hmmm. China reads "Made in China" from space. I wouldn't have expected that.
   

Stupid Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I remembered, space is outside the borders of the US...I'm starting to hate my country more and more...

So, at what distance from the earth's surface...

[Anonymous Coward]

...do I need a license?

Obviously, when I'm standing on the ground and take a photo of the ground, I don't need a license. Neither do I need it from a mountain top. Probably not from an airplane or a weather balloon.
So, at what distance does this kick in and can anyone cite the applicable law and regulation?

easy answer ;

[denisbergeron]

What is going to happen when "space tourists" bring their private cameras along for the ride?"
  Easy answer : but the spaceport in a country where freedom mean something and don't take photo of USA, nothing to see, nothing to photography here anyway. Sad but true.

I say screw em

[CrazyJim1]

What are they gonna do, shoot down your satellites? Doubtful. They have NO AA.

Re:I say screw em

[Chrontius]

Actually, they do have ASAT weapons. Remember the satellite we shot down after talk that the hydrazine tank would impact intact like an orbit-to-surface bomb?

Hm, actually, I'm suddenly detecting a new motive for that shootdown. I for one wouldn't like to give away the results of the first study on my new strategic weapons system... anyone hear about the idea to put kinetic weapons on sub-launched ICBMs?

Re:I say screw em

[ion.simon.c]

Meh.
Why do real world tests when you can just simulate it on your handy-dandy Cray 9000(TM)?

Re:I say screw em

[Chrontius]

So other people can see the explosion, people you wouldn't trust with the necessary information to conduct the simulations - as that's usually enough to build one of their own.

This is to stop WWIII

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it and RTFA, this is to stop WWIII from starting, in 1992 things were still very hair-trigger to a launch and annilation of the entire earth, all over some dude with a camera on a rocket, which would be unidentified by the US and USSR. Yet it comes from US airspace, prelude to a first nuke launch is total denial you have launched to beat the 15 minute retaliatory window and pound their nukes in the silos prior to launch.

This is a launch from anywhere, especially the sea where our offensive sub fleet is.

Re:This is to stop WWIII

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it and RTFA, this is to stop WWIII from starting, in 1992 things were still very hair-trigger to a launch and annilation of the entire earth, all over some dude with a camera on a rocket, which would be unidentified by the US and USSR.

The USSR was dissolved in 1991. Geez, how old are you??

Re:This is to stop WWIII

[Dun Malg]

Think about it and RTFA, this is to stop WWIII from starting, in 1992 things were still very hair-trigger to a launch and annilation of the entire earth, all over some dude with a camera on a rocket, which would be unidentified by the US and USSR.

Obviously false. If it were about that, it would apply to rockets WITHOUT cameras as well. here's no substantive difference between a camera equipped rocket and a non-camera-equipped one as far as mistaking it for an ICBM goes.

Pooh...

[msauve]

completely unconstitutional. Not only does it violate freedom of the press, but Congress has no constitutional authority to create such a law.

Re:Pooh...

[Steve1952]

Well they did it. Of course it may be unconstitutional, but since its a "national security" thing, the courts may not want to get involved.

All in all, the license for a few pixel image from the moon should be trivial to get. Just a bit of extra useless paperwork.

Re:Pooh...

[EvilIdler]

Of course they have! And the law shall apply to the entire world!

Re:Pooh...

[AJWM]

Read again the bit about international obligations. Congress has consitutional authority to pass laws in accordance with treaties that the US has entered into. It's a nice loophole that lets them step around other parts of the constitution if they really want to (just get the treaty negotiated first), not unlike the interstate commerce clause.

Ultimately the Supreme Court may rule otherwise, of course, but getting to that point is not an easy or cheap process.

Not sure what any of that has to do with freedom of the press - that relates to publishing pictures you've already taken, not taking them in the first place. Do you think a press pass is enough to get you into (to use the ubiqutious example) Area 51?

Uhm ... say what?

[Hektor_Troy]

What makes taking a photo at 200 km different than taking it at 2km? Why the hell would you need to obtain a license from NOAA just because you go above some arbitrarily defined altitude?

However you put it, it's rather difficult to "actively or passively sensing the Earth's surface, including bodies of water" at any distance without resorting to the "use of the properties of the electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected, or diffracted by the sensed objects".

And what makes the Earth so fucking special in the first place? Why not add these requirements to other objects in an orbit around a star?

from the Government sucks department...

[OpinionatedDude]

Between this and the guy getting arrested for shooting his malfunctioning lawn mower...I think maybe it's time to pack up and leave this silly country. Is Australia or NZ this screwed up yet?

Re:from the Government sucks department...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes

Earth is flat

[Anonymous Coward]

Earth is flat. They just don't want you to take photos to prove it.

"No Mr NOAA sir I wasn't TRYING to photograph

[Anonymous Coward]

Area 51."

Space is International territory

[jonfr]

Space is by definition a international territory. As such the laws that NOAA sites don't apply in space (they do in the U.S but not in space). Furthermore this would never stand up in court if they where to test it, that is my opinion. But I am not a lawyer and I don't live in the U.S.

U.S don't own space, even if NOAA seems to think so.

Re:Space is International territory

[Dredd13]

Space is by definition a international territory. As such the laws that NOAA sites don't apply in space (they do in the U.S but not in space).

True, but a US citizen/corporation can be punished (whether this is "morally right" or not I am not debating) for actions they take outside the country.

For example, if a US citizen travels to Cuba and spends money "in Cuban jurisdiction", the law forbidding the spending of money in Cuba is not "in effect" because the US doesn't run Cuba, but when the US citizen gets back on home soil, you can bet that los federales will want a word with them.

It's only a matter of time before Americans begin getting busted for "driving too fast" on the Autobahn, or "inhaling illicit materials" in Amsterdam.

But, if you're a US citizen, these are the laws you've allowed yourself to be subject to, stupid as they are.

Re:Space is International territory

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, very true makes being a US citizen suck ass more and more every year! Eventually the US will undergo a revolution, it really is inevitable.

Re:Space is International territory

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets even better:

The USA will ask for extradition of Dutch nationals selling illicit materials to Americans *IN* Amsterdam.

The Dutch government, always ready to bend over and take it from behind from the USA, will happily comply and send over the culprits a.s.a.p.

Better not to think about these things too hard though, your head will explode.

Re:Space is International territory

[Anonymous Coward]

Space is by definition a international territory. As such the laws that NOAA sites don't apply in space (they do in the U.S but not in space).

International waters are also by definition a international territory. National laws apply aboard a ship in international waters, based on the nationality of the ship. Similarly, national laws aboard a spacecraft in space, based on the nationality of the spacecraft.

Dont excuse me NOAA

[unity100]

Cruise agencies, bus companies, airline companies do not require licenses or royalties for photos that are shot by their customers.

you cant either. probably the underlying reason is NOONE CAN COPYRIGHT/PATENT EARTH

so cut the crap.

Re:Dont excuse me NOAA

[Dahamma]

You seem to be assuming that copyrights, patents, licenses etc. are some sort of universal force of nature (also, the NOAA doesn't pass the laws, Congress does. The NOAA enforces them.)

Of course they can require a license to take photos of the Earth from space, just like they can require a license for you to get married, drive a car, or own a dog. Why? Because stupid or not, we gave our government the power to require them. Feel free to ignore these laws, but don't expect your rational arguments to make any different in court...

Re:Dont excuse me NOAA

[unity100]

this is not a stupid 'government is evil' republican viewpoint debate.

social organization, central and local governments are the concepts we invented to get us out of goddamn caves and up into the sky.

the abuse of these concepts are causing those stupid 'you need license to take picture of everest' shit. its NOT the fault of government concept or anything. its the fault of PEOPLE YOU ELECT/LET INTO THOSE OFFICES.

Re:Dont excuse me NOAA

[cowscows]

This isn't a copyright issue. There are a number of reasons why various organizations want to keep track of who's potentially photographing them from space, but it's not because any of them believe that they have some sort of inherent IP ownership of pictures of the planet.

There are lots of different directions that you could criticize the applicable laws from and have a valid argument, but you're not going to get very far yelling about coyprighting the Earth, because that's not the issue.

Re:Dont excuse me NOAA

[Dahamma]

How is what I said in any way different from what you just said?

"Because stupid or not, we gave our government the power to require them." Try to pay attention... 'stupid' = the law in question, 'we' = voters, 'government' = the people we elected who enacted this law.

My point is that all of these laws are human constructs (as are "human rights" to be honest), so it's pointless to argue about "trademarking the Earth". If a law is passed to prohibit US citizens from taking photos of Earth from space, then it's illegal until someone (hopefully) finds a way to get it overturned.

Re:Dont excuse me NOAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone likes you.

Once again

[iminplaya]

We have government appeasing big business interests, nothing more. This is similar to private weather companies trying to restrict access to weather satellites. Somewhere in Slashdot there is a story about it.

Does this mean orbital psychics need a license?

[Invidious]

The question here is what 'remote sensing' means. I think that automatically exempts any hand held camera, but I'm not sure about sensors on a manned spacecraft. The entire bit posted above seems to deal primarily with satellites, or at least that seems to be the intent.

Re:Does this mean orbital psychics need a license?

[rk]

Just to be clear: the fringe/pseudo science is usually called "remote viewing". Remote sensing is the science of recording and interpreting electromagnetic interactions with matter at a distance, usually with aircraft and satellites as the observation platform. There is no sharp line between what is remote sensing and what is not. You could certainly claim that using a hand held camera can be remote sensing.

And the Russians and Chinese said:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

We. Don't. Think. So.

RS

He is Anonymous Coward

[Bananatree3]

He is timeless.

Copyright of Earth

[kawabago]

You can only be granted copyrights on a work you created. Misguided as America may be, they definitely didn't create the earth.

Re:Copyright of Earth

[Rob Kaper]

You could consider settled areas to be derivative works of art with their own copyright. And although I don't know who worked the first week, I know that on the eighth day the Dutch created the Netherlands.

In the Soviet States of America......

[budword]

All Soviet jokes aside, anyone notice how much the United States is resembling more and more the old school buffoons of the USSR ? It was illegal to possess accurate maps in the old USSR, to protect state secrets. Now we have the US claim you need a license to take a picture of the earth. It's just a 21st century version of screaming, "Papers Please". I for one, don't hail our old overlords.

Re:In the Soviet States of America......

[josh82]

Now we have the US claim you need a license to take a picture of the earth. It's just a 21st century version of screaming, "Papers Please". I for one, don't hail our old overlords.

I, for one, welcome our new Slashdot pundits.

Re:In the Soviet States of America......

[You are not listenin]

We actually become more like the USSR every day, actually I know people that lived in the soviet bloc for most of their lives, and when I ask them about resemblances between the US and their (basically) communist dictatorships they have a lot to say. For example, they see mass media in the US as an echo of media propoganda in the eastern bloc and such. It's pretty crazy, but our country is going to shit in more ways than one.

How much?

[AJWM]

I agree that the whole concept of applying this to Lunar X-prize entrants is ludicrous, but if the law is on the books then NOAA has to at least pay lip service to it.

The question is, how much does the license cost? Back in the day, you needed an FCC license to operate a CB radio, and you still do to operate some bands/power levels of GRS radios (walky-talkies). But the license was just a registration thing - send in your application (I don't even recall it costing anything, maybe a couple bucks) and they sent you your offical license and call sign. Perhaps the NOAA "remote sensing" license -- at least in this case -- will be similar.

I can see some need for regulating (thus licensing) high resolution imaging satellites of the sort that put earlier generations of spysats to shame -- and I imagine the application for same requires all sorts of details about resolution, bandwidths, orbital parameters, download frequencies and encoding, and security measures to ensure that the pictures you took of $SENSITIVE_SITE don't end up in the wrong hands. And I can see charging a hefty price to someone who can probably afford it (satellites aren't cheap) for processing the paperwork.

But if NOAA is charging more than a token fee to process applications for something like Lunar X-Prize, (and the up-to 120 day turnaround is not encouraging), then write your congresscritters to (a) put the squeeze on NOAA to lighten up, and (b) amend the 1992 Act to bring it into the current millenium.

[Meanwhile, I'm pleased to note that my satellite which does remote sensing exclusively by gravity waves and neutrinos needs no such license. ;-) ]

Woah, learn something new every day

[Aphoxema]

I wasn't aware that the NOAA owned the Earth, maybe that's why aliens aren't coming and checking us out, they can't get a currency exchange for their buckazoids to get the outrageous license.

NOAA is the good guys

[daemonburrito]

This is law, and is totally out of the control of NOAA.

I've done a lot of work with NOAA and NOAA datasets and this sort of thing happens a lot, because of businesses who believe that "the government should not be in the business of distributing data". Predictably, they lobby congress. FWIW, I've witnessed NOAA passively resist this bullshit as much as they can.

BTW, if you find this sort thing disgusting (as I do), stop going to weather.com and accu-weather. They are the worst offenders. Every couple of years they try to shut down NOAA ftp servers so they can be the gatekeepers of taxpayer-funded data (like maps).

This law, in particular, is a piece of a strategy that didn't work in the early 90s, thanks in large part to career people at NOAA. They got this law passed, but they weren't able to shut down the ftp servers.

Please don't blame the NOAA people. Blame the businesses like weather.com and accu-weather, and blame a bribable congress.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you recommend a good alternative weather site?

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[daemonburrito]

I don't know for sure that they're not evil, but wunderground.com has a nexrad interface that is the bee's knees.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[fortyonejb]

Interesting thought, how does the weather channel people plan to out government a government agency?

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[AaxelB]

It doesn't have as nice an interface, but if you're switching in support of NOAA you may as get it from them directly, at weather.gov. (I generally use Weather Underground, which is pretty good, though last I checked they have a lot of ads if you don't block them)

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[dattaway]

Wunderground still has their telnet service. I've used it for 15 years:

telnet rainmaker.wunderground.com

and use their friendly text interface.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[twofunky]

Ok, so let me see if I understand, places like weather.com and accu-weather are forcing NOAA to require companies to get a license in order to protect the NOAA from getting their servers shut down. Something does not make sense here!

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[AaxelB]

Well how about that, this _is_ rather friendly.

I think I'll be using this interface from now on, thanks for the tip!

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[sydney094]

That was actually a nice service... I've used their web site for years, but didn't know about this.

That was a nice surprise.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[oboeaaron]

BTW, if you find this sort thing disgusting (as I do), stop going to weather.com and accu-weather.

Out of curiosity, what source(s) do you recommend instead of these? TIA.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[daemonburrito]

If you move laterally to this thread, everything there is pretty right on (I had forgotten about the rainmaker telnet... very cool).

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[daemonburrito]

No, I'm afraid you don't really understand. The 1992 law is a piece of a strategy that has, so far, failed. The idea, as described in the signing statement, is to "[...] encourage future commercial opportunities" by "[...] supporting investments in new remote sensing technologies".

This law (and many others that failed, thankfully), came out of a philosophy that proposed that private interests could do a better job than the government at disseminating data. It's totally cynical, of course: These entities just wanted to charge for what NOAA could distribute for free and make sure that any data that NOAA and similar agencies already had was "licensed" to them (i.e. not given away).

Accuweather's (for one) last attempt to "privatize" data was in 2005. It's almost a bi-annual effort.

On reflection, I can see how you could make a case for this law in the realm of remote imaging from satellites. This law was written for Digital Globe. The justification was that an imaging company needed government help to make the work economically feasible. But, obviously, the X-Prize foundation has a different philosophy on encouraging space exploration :).

Sucks that the DoC got stuck with implementing this thing. My main point is this: This is not NOAA's fault. Somebody at the Commerce Department threw a hissy (likely somebody at Digital Globe or GeoEye complained), and this law is indeed on the books.

Again, in summary: Please don't blame NOAA. They do amazing work, give us all the data we want for free with no hassle, and have resisted efforts to take away our (taxpayers) data. They're the good guys. Seriously. Very good nerds. Nerds that we can only dream of becoming someday.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[pembo13]

If they NOAA are the good guys? Why do they not do something about it? And why do they have AA in their abbreviated name?

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[Solandri]

If they NOAA are the good guys? Why do they not do something about it? And why do they have AA in their abbreviated name?

They can't because Congress makes the law and the Executive (basically the President) gives them guiding directives. Anyone trying to counter those will either be disciplined or fired, or brought up on charges for breaking the law.

I also ran into this about 10-15 years ago. I was looking for sea surface temperature data from NOAA satellites so I could plan fishing trips. The satellites were paid for by my taxes, so I figured the data would be available on a public NASA or NOAA ftp server. After a lot of searching I eventually pieced together that some company had managed to get a law passed making them the exclusive distributor of the data, which they'd happily sell me for $60 for one day's photos, or something like $1000/yr. Total BS.

And the other *AAs are "Association of America". The AA in NOAA is "Atmospheric Administration".

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[uassholes]

I sometimes look at wunderground for wx here in Toronto, but that telnet server only works for the states. Too bad.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[dattaway]

I sometimes look at wunderground for wx here in Toronto, but that telnet server only works for the states. Too bad.

The wunderground telnet service parses most major airports. Check the city codes for your state. Chances are, there's one close to you. The great thing about the airport forecasts is they are good enough for pilots and choosing gear for riding motorcycles. The local television news seems like a political wordsmith case compared to the NOAA forecasts.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the city codes for your state.

Okay, so what's the city code for Toronto, Ontario, Canada?

Hint: major airport is CYYZ (ICAO) / YYZ (IATA). Overall city area is YTO (IATA).

So paste here the result from rainmaker.wunderground.com for Toronto. Thanks!

(While you're at it, I would also like to know the weather result for London, United Kingdom would be nice... Major airport is EGLL / LHR and IATA city code is LON). Cheers!

(Note that both of these results are available in the wunderground.com web service, but your parent article was pointing out that they are not available in the telnet service).

Europe is just as bad

[mangu]

Have you ever seen how Denmark is kicking the Scandinavian balls?

Planting the Flag in the New World

[Original Replica]

It seems like it would be hard to enforce jurisdiction in space

But that's really the whole point you see; extending government jurisdiction into space. Suppose Virgin Galactic builds a space hotel, is it an independent nation? A privately owned holding not subject to any man made laws? What about 100 years from now, I'm sure the governments of Earth would prefer to have control over Lunar He3 resources. To do that they need to start slowly establishing authority in space. Next, any space hotel will be declared to be under the control of the home nation of the corporation that builds/operates it. Then that nation just expands it's sphere of influence in the name of security,exploration and manifest destiny. Really it's just a land grab.

Re:Planting the Flag in the New World

[TooMuchToDo]

So what you're saying is that if I plan on building an empire off-world, I need to make sure the initial base on Earth is a huge floating city, not under the control of any existing government? Fantastic.

Re:Planting the Flag in the New World

[Thought1]

Pretty much, yeah. (:

Re:Planting the Flag in the New World

[Original Replica]

Or keep it a secret until it's large enough to declare and defend it's independence. Here's a rough idea of probable minimum size: Liechtenstein is 62 sq miles with a population of 29,000.

Re:Planting the Flag in the New World

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like it would be hard to enforce jurisdiction in space

  But that's really the whole point you see; extending government jurisdiction into space. Suppose Virgin Galactic builds a space hotel, is it an independent nation? A privately owned holding not subject to any man made laws? What about 100 years from now, I'm sure the governments of Earth would prefer to have control over Lunar He3 resources. To do that they need to start slowly establishing authority in space. Next, any space hotel will be declared to be under the control of the home nation of the corporation that builds/operates it. Then that nation just expands it's sphere of influence in the name of security,exploration and manifest destiny. Really it's just a land grab.

I just want to see them get one of those Cushman vehicles into orbit let alone to the Moon. Enforcement is going to be more than a little dicey.

Re:Planting the Flag in the New World

[gregbot9000]

That would be so fucking funny if they required the space structures to be under the nation that the corporation is based in, and the corporation moved to some third world country for convenience, then all of a sudden some back water now has the best space program anywhere.

Re:Planting the Flag in the New World

[Anonymous Coward]

already existing heavenly bodies (*snigger*) are out of bounds for land grabbage. Not sure about stuff that people put up there themselves.

Re:Planting the Flag in the New World

[You are not listenin]

Why is this necessarily extending government jurisidiction into space?
The law applies to people who are still based in the US when the pictures are taken, e.g. someone controlling a satellite, so in that sense, the law applies to the actions of people on the ground on US territory. Not to mention, you don't get arrested in space, you get arrested on the ground as soon as pictures become available/known of (again) on the ground. When we have the legal framework for arresting people in space you can claim we're extending our jurisdiction, but until then, this is no different in terms of jurisidiction from requiring that no US citizen join the military of a different country (thing of dual citizens with mandatory military service in their second country). Its a requirement of the US government on actions of it's citizens outside of it's jurisidiction, but all actions the government actually takes in response to an infraction have ramifications exclusively within it's jurisidiction (you lose your citizenship here/you get arrested here in the US).

Re:Planting the Flag in the New World

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that if I plan on building an empire off-world, I need to make sure the initial base on Earth is a huge floating city, not under the control of any existing government? Fantastic.

In fact, I'm slightly surprised that no companies have actually done this yet. Buy a load of old cargo ships, tether them all together and float 'em out into international waters. Declare yourself a new country and incorporate your company HQ there. Surely the amount that it would cost to do this is way less than the cost of complying with all the taxes and regulations you get from most countries? I see this being particularly beneficial for biotechnology research, weapons development and reverse engineering/DMCA-type violations. If there's a problem with ships having to be registered in a country, then perhaps you could use old oil platforms instead?

Tourists are OK...

[Anonymous Coward]

The law actually excludes handheld cameras. "Small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote sensing space systems" (15 CFR 960.3 Definitions).

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I say do what you want in space. What are they going to do, seize your spacecraft?

Play the game...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobby the Government to reduce their funding.

Lose the tinfoils hats...

[PhysicsPhil]

Even for Slashdot, this is an overreaction. This is nothing more or less than a country having a law on the books that, read literally, applies to a situation that nobody envisioned when the law was originally written.

When you read the law in question, it was meant to regulate satellite operators from giving space images of sensitive American installations to not-so-friendly people. Seems pretty reasonable not to want the ABC Satellite Company to give high resolution images of military facilities to the Russians and Chinese, doesn't it? Unfortunately the way it was drafted it also applies to space tourists.

The law isn't stupid, it's just broader than anyone realized at the time Stupidity would be actually prosecuting anyone for taking a few snapshots out the spacecraft window without a license.

My hometown still has a law on the books that cars aren't allowed to scare the horses travelling down Main Street. Anyone want to get up in arms about that one while we're at it?

Re:Lose the tinfoils hats...

[plasmacutter]

The law isn't stupid, it's just broader than anyone realized at the time Stupidity would be actually prosecuting anyone for taking a few snapshots out the spacecraft window without a license.

I think they realized exactly what they were doing..

DMCA anyone?

a quote from the post above yours.

This law, in particular, is a piece of a strategy that didn't work in the early 90s, thanks in large part to career people at NOAA. They got this law passed, but they [private services like accu-weather] weren't able to shut down the ftp servers.

Re:Lose the tinfoils hats...

[a1terego]

This law does not make it illegal for foreigners to take satellite images of American installations. Somehow, I don't think this particular law was framed with national security in mind.

Re:Lose the tinfoils hats...

[tricorn]

This law wouldn't apply to space tourists. By definition, they aren't "remote sensing".

Re:Lose the tinfoils hats...

[pembo13]

Even your interpretation of the law is stupid. If I make a space vehicle, and I am in space, I can take pictures of any dam thing I want. You can't own photons. Frankly, that you even are willing to post in defense of this, based on your interpretation, is scary. Leads me to believe that if I was in my spaceship, you would feel justified in having me shot down for taking pictures. Even if it's an old law its still stupid -- they could use some of that tax money to you know, do their work and ensure that laws make sense.

Re:Lose the tinfoils hats...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

My hometown still has a law on the books that cars aren't allowed to scare the horses travelling down Main Street. Anyone want to get up in arms about that one while we're at it?

Does anyone try to enforce that law? My guess is that law is being properly treated as something like a dead-letter law, this 1993 law is not dead-letter. I see quite a big difference there.

Whether space tourists taking snapshots would be considered "remote sensing" does seem to depend on how far a prosecutor, plaintiff are willing to stretch their interpretation and how far a judge would be willing to go along with it.

Another problem is that while US corporations would be prohibited from selling sensitive images, what does that do for foreign entities? That's somewhat like building a brick façade for a bank vault, but the side and rear walls are just ordinary "stick" building and wallboard.

Re:Lose the tinfoils hats...

[Anonymous Coward]

That law is not so stupid. I don't know how large you town is, but even in a city centre there are likely to be horses around (police, hearses, random rich people, etc.), and if you scare a horse then someone could get badly hurt.

Re:So, at what distance from the earth's surface..

[camperdave]

100KM.

Oops, sorry. This is an American story: 62 miles, 241 yards, 11 and 7/8 inches. Presumably, you'd have to be in orbit as well.

Eh, not all bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only section of the law that makes any sense is the part about publishing orbits and notifying the government of orbital deviations... but those notifications should probably be going to NASA.

No...

[msauve]

You confuse access (Area 51) to free press. If you have pictures, you can publish them. The gov't cannot infringe upon civil rights through treaties.

I can be pragmatic, and recognize that there are many Federal laws which are clearly unconstitutional, yet still exist and are enforced. The entire body of regulatory "law" is one example - Congress has no authority to deligate its powers. That only proves that we are not a nation of law.

Re:No...

[AJWM]

No, you confuse access (launching satellites that can take pictures) with free press. The NOAA licensing is not about what you do with the pictures later, it's about taking them in the first place. To the extent that it is restricting what you do with them, that's you voluntarily giving up some rights to obtain access in the first place -- nothing unconstitutional about that.

Not that I necessarily disagree with the rest of your comment.

Re:No...

[Teancum]

I think you are significantly confused about what the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution really says.

Your argument is akin to suggesting that Congress (or some other governmental body in the USA) has the authority to regulate who may or may not have access to computers or cameras for that matter... or a printing press.

If you print or write something using a computer or printing press that a government official objects to... for what ever reason... that license can be revoked and taken from you.

More to the point, I fail to see why a license like this is needed in the first place... so far as regulating what a private individual can do. Regulating the ability to take a picture is identical to controlling what can be done with those images later.

Also, I fail to see what part of "Congress shall make no law..." isn't clear here. Congress doesn't even have the authority to regulate this issue.

The NoAA can suck eggs

[ourcraft]

Thanks very much. Talk about blind arrogance.

Next step

[MRB Constant]

The next step is to require you to get a license to use Google EarthTM.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for us all when I say, WTF!?!

BS...

[msauve]

the "license" is not to launch a rocket, it's to take a picture.
Beyond which, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to restrict non-interstate, non-foreign travel? Nowhere.

Re:BS...

[AJWM]

If you don't have a license to take the picture, it's a fair bet that OCST/FAA won't license you for the launch. As for restricting travel -- they're not preventing you from leaving, just from using a rocket to do it.

(BTW, do you usually "foe" people you lose an argument with? LOL!)

Re:BS...

[Plumber, Programmer,]

IANAL.
First of all, 15 USC ch 82 sec 5602 refers to a "remote sensing system" being "from an unclassified satellite," but I don't see a definition of satellite there. I don't know if this law applies to manned spacecraft.
Of course, the Lunar X Prize involves a robot on the surface of the moon, and presumably the system for getting it there. For that system, it should apply.
It seems pretty clear that an unlicensed "private remote sensing system" would violate this law. However, I don't see an exemption in the law or the regulation (15 CFR 960) for the Press.
The clearest problem would be if that unlicensed system was owned and operated by members of the press. In that case, this law would seem to conflict with the First Amendment of the US Constitution by abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Then you get into sticky issues of which part of the constitution wins in this case.

WTF here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

as i see it there only two things in all of existence and non existence that are infinite ..

the first one ..

unlimited .. unending space ..
just try and wrap you limited finite conceptual mind around the idea of an unlimited .. unending .. unified space of existence ..
good luck ..

and the second one ..

american/hebrew arrogance .. which is also limitless and unending .. presently the single biggest problem faced by the other 6+ billion inhabitants of planet earth ..

and as opposed to any more blessings ..

god please!! please!! give america and their proxy state israel .. the boot fucking they so rightly deserve .. they have TAKEN more than enough of your blessings ..

a coward ..

someone who uses weapons and or body armour to defend and or enhance their existence ..

the idea that people who go into battle with weapons and armour are heroes is so absurd as to defy the process of true logic .. but then again you can use the intellect to rationalize and justify ANYTHING .. the idea that i can make anonymous comments on the internet .. and that it is cowardly to do so .. is laughable .. but it is not funny .. no one who post an opinion on the internet is coward .. you are in truth risking a great deal .. and with awareness of the average audience .. probably foolish ..but hardly cowardly ..

Re:So, at what distance from the earth's surface..

[rk]

Metric: PASS

Significant Figures: FAIL

;-)

b-b-but

[GregNorc]

I'd have assumed space was... well... space. That it would be international "waters" for lack of a better term. How can any earth laws apply to conduct in space?

Prior Art!

[brianc]

Apollo 8 Earthrise Dec 1968
From Gooogle Images

And the first TV photo of Earth from TIROS 1 on 1 April 1960.
(April Fools Day- how apropos)

They should tell NOAA

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

to f'off...

Uhmmm - Sorry NOAA

[GuyverDH]

That's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...

Space is definitely outside of your jurisdiction, especially once they've crossed into space outside of U.S. borders...

Are we in trouble?

[Anonymous Coward]

At what altitude does this law take effect?

My high school Rocket Club regularly sends up rockets with cameras onboard.

Wouldn't this also apply to pictures out a plan's window at 35,000 ft?

I'm the only one noticing it?

[edsousa]

So the letter says that they need a license if they're "capable of actively or passively sensing the Earth's surface, including bodies of water, from space by making use of the properties of the electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected, or diffracted by the sensed objects".

Question: How in hell robots would navigate? Sonars? Not a option.Vision based systems? Nop, they use images. Radar? They make use properties of the electromagnetic waves reflected and diffracted by objects.

Someone please enlighten me coz I'm not that getting that out...

Re:I'm the only one noticing it?

[mbone]

Robots, hell. Strictly speaking they should keep their eyes closed.

legally speaking

[Gryftir]

A review of the law indicates that the secretary of commerce only has statutory authority to require licenses for private remote sensing. The relevant passage is:

"In the case of a private space system that is used for remote sensing and other purposes, the authority of the Secretary under this subchapter shall be limited only to the remote sensing operations of such space system."

While land remote sensing is defined, the statutory authority is limited to private remote sensing, which is not defined. A clear english reading would seem to indicate space tourists snapping pictures with their cameras are not engaging in remote sensing.

Even if land remote sensing, and private remote sensing are ruled to the be the same, land remote sensing is defined in terms of satellites, which means any space vehicle which does not enter into orbit does not require any license.

Of course the main argument for ruling that land remote sensing and private remote sensing are the same is to speak to the intent of Congress. The whole point of the licensing is to provide for commercial competition to the LandSat system, which tourists don't seem to qualify for.

The act, in any case, allows, in the case of adverse action, for people to ask the secretary of commerce to review the matter, and to bring it to the courts after he gives his final opinion, if they still don't like it.

Re:legally speaking

[Teancum]

"In the case of a private space system that is used for remote sensing and other purposes, the authority of the Secretary under this subchapter shall be limited only to the remote sensing operations of such space system."

While land remote sensing is defined, the statutory authority is limited to private remote sensing, which is not defined. A clear english reading would seem to indicate space tourists snapping pictures with their cameras are not engaging in remote sensing.

I don't see a reason why the definition of "remote sensing" would allow an exception to a tourist carrying a hand-held camera. Indeed, a great many images that came from the Apollo program as well as the Space Shuttle were taken with a hand-held camera. The Skylab missions even used hand-held cameras for "remote sensing" at various wavelengths to measure crop production and a number of other interesting tasks that were used for Earth Science investigations.

Even more specific, a typical high-end consumer camera has perhaps better optic and higher resolution imaging elements than a great many dedicated unmanned remote sensing satellites. Where exactly do you draw the line? When exactly would a private citizen taking a quick snapshot out the window of Spaceship 2 turn into something more critical that this law would have to be applied?

So if some Texas oil developers hired Virgin Galactic to fly one of their employees to photograph from 100 km above the Earth (technically in space) and take a few of these "snapshots" that they in turn used with some of their geologists for oil exploration.... does that qualify as "remote sensing"? I would even see that as "commercial competition to the LandSat system". BTW, this sort of "remote sensing" is done by private contractors with aviation all of the time. It just isn't happening "in space" yet.

I, for one, also think that by the time a situation arises that has to go to court to figure this stuff out, that it is already a policy failure. Giving a single person (in this case the Secretary of Commerce) the authority to decide who may and may not take a picture of the Earth seems to border on the ludicrous.

I will admit, however, that space law is going to get a whole lot more interesting when it is private citizens thinking they can do any damn thing they want to do rather than a bunch of government employees following a strictly regimented schedule and worrying about keeping their job.

I certainly hope that they plan to ignore this.

[mbone]

I certainly hope that the crews plan to ignore this. NOAA might have a point if a participant does plan to set up a commercial remote sensing service and sell the product in the US, but this statement is impossibly broad and should not just be rolled over for.

You're missing the obvious reason!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so the terrorists can't find the United States on a globe.

The NOAA could achieve the same effect by educating those terrorists through American public schools.

Fuck them

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

They do not have the authority to say who can take pictures of the earth, and the US Government does not have the right to give them the authority.

No Jurisdiction

[Doc Ruby]

The NOAA doesn't have any jurisdiction outside the US to require a license for anything done there. Spacecraft orbiting over the US are not part of the US, despite simpleminded interpretations of "air rights" regulation. Electromagnetic waves coming from the Earth's surface outside US boundaries are not subject to any NOAA jurisdiction. And NOAA doesn't have jurisdiction over electromagnetic waves coming from private property, or publicly viewable surfaces of any government property, whether publicly physically accessible like parks and roads or even the outside of NOAA buildings.

In fact, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where NOAA has any power to regulate anything, certainly not photography of objects viewable by people who are standing somewhere legally.

NOAA can take its license requirement and stick it up its... er, NOAA doesn't even have one of those.

Re:No Jurisdiction

[tricorn]

They have jurisdiction over people inside the United States who are engaged in activities that are covered by the regulations. These regulations, besides being concerned with security of photographs and such of sensitive areas, are also concerned with air-wave clutter, orbital debris, and even with ensuring that such data IS made available beyond what commercial interests might want to provide. There's nothing there trying to be protectionist that I see, neither of existing/future commercial interests nor of NOAA data itself. On the contrary.

Re:No Jurisdiction

[Doc Ruby]

NOAA does not have any jurisdiction over anyone taking pictures of anything, except subjects of photography that are located inside NOAA facilities and not viewable by the general public.

Show me where NOAA has the extraordinary power to prohibit photography by people who are legally standing somewhere they can see something. The only such powers are security powers, within the jurisdiction of security agencies, and even those are probably indefensible in court except where the judge can be shown proof of actual national security at stake.

Re:No Jurisdiction

[tricorn]

The regulations don't prohibit photography by people, standing, sitting, flying or orbiting. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? At all?

Re:No Jurisdiction

[Doc Ruby]

Or if they legally launched a camera into space that's legally standing where it takes photos.

What's your problem? We both know what I'm talking about. Who are you trying to fool with your absurd hairsplitting? Yourself?

Re:No Jurisdiction

[Teancum]

Space law is really screwed up in a whole bunch of areas, and I will admit that this particular issue of being able to take a snapshot out the window of a spacecraft of the Earth is but one minor example.

The rationale for this law, I'm pretty sure, is one of good intentions to encourage the sharing of information gathered from what used to be very expensive missions into space and could only be afforded by major national governments (US, Russia, China, India, etc.) and major multi-national companies with deep pockets.

What is happening here is that access to space is getting cheap enough that an ordinary private citizen will soon have the purchasing power to send up their own private spacecraft of some kind, even if it was just a small 1 kg micro-satellite, or be going on (for now) a sub-orbital flight that could potentially cross several national jurisdictions. We are now at a point where concepts of personal freedom are pounding head-first into a realm that was previously deemed to be the realm of government employees alone.

This is just the beginning of such legal confrontations, not the end of them.

Re:No Jurisdiction

[tricorn]

No, I have no idea what you're talking about. You're saying wild things about NOAA regulating people taking photographs. We're talking about launching things into space. You said "legally launched a camera into space". If there's no person there with that camera, and it is sending back pictures to Earth, that is "remote sensing", thus it wasn't a legal launch unless you had a license from NOAA. You said NOAA doesn't have any jurisdiction, which means you haven't read the legislation.

Do you dispute the right of the US Government to control rocket launches from the United States or by its citizens and enforce regulations (based on international agreements) on where you can park a satellite so as not to cause problems for other space objects? Ok, you say, that's NASA that has jurisdiction over that. And guess what, NOAA has been given the task of overseeing (licensing) the subset of space launches that involve "remote sensing", just as the FCC has oversight on communications satellites. Why NOAA? Because they have the most experience with "remote sensing" technology.

It isn't remote sensing if you go up with the camera. I'm pretty sure the FAA, along with NASA, then has some jurisdiction. Since taking photographs potentially has security implications, there will no doubt be more regulations regarding "space tourists" taking photographs; and, no doubt, they won't cover hand-held cameras. Take all the pictures you want of Earth, the Moon, or anything else you want from space, NOAA won't care.

Note that part of the regulations regarding remote sensing requires a level of sharing of any data collected. Isn't that a good thing?

Re:No Jurisdiction

[Doc Ruby]

I don't know what the "rationale" for this law was, and I don't think laws really are ever primarily the product of a "rationale".

But I do think I can guess what the people who do have licenses think of it: that it protects their limited supply of space-based imagery. And I expect that the spooks who've long run NOAA's atmospheric imaging programmes to serve their "Star Wars" missile defense programmes think that it protects their ability to monopolize the availability of space-based imagery.

Re:No Jurisdiction

[Teancum]

In order for something to become law, it (usually) has to make sense to at least a fairly good number of people... and to be able to convince a majority of those on the committees involved as well as the majority of those in the main legislative body that it at least is "harmless" to their constituency.

Having served on several legislative bodies, it turns my stomach to think of some of the garbage that I have passed without really digging deeper into the consequences of the resolutions I've had a hand in approving. Some of it at the recommendation of the "staff" that is ultimately misguided, but sometimes because there is a herd mentality on legislative bodies to not try and rock the boat in case you need support for your next pet project.

I can only imagine this law was passed mainly due to the ignorance of those congressmen who didn't really pay close attention to the exact text of this bill, and that the "staff" who help to draft the law made some assumptions that clearly aren't true any more.

Re:No Jurisdiction

[Teancum]

I've been digging really hard into not only the text of this law, but also the legislative history of it.

I think a constitutional challenge could be mounted here if you really wanted to try hard... and have common sense prevail.

The legislative comments (indeed only one house member even made any comments about it at all) was concerning the Landsat program and how data generated by government sponsored spacecraft or at least government launched spacecraft would be worked.

That is some sound reasoning: If the government is footing the bill, even partially, it ought to have a say in what goes "up there". Also, taxpayer-funded remote sensing activity ought to have the data shared with those who are helping pay the bill: The general public. This data ought to be shared as well.

BTW, I don't think regulating what a satellite is doing "up there" in this manner toward completely private ventures is necessarily productive and healthy. I can certainly imagine a whole bunch of reasons why privately collected data ought to remain private... if only for competitive advantages between other private individuals.

There are several ways you can read this law, and the interpretation of the current NOAA bureaucrats is just one of them.

Don't take the sky from me.

[Maxo-Texas]

I don't think NOAA has any frikkin right to do this to anyone except U.S. citizens-- and I'm not sure about us.

NAAGCP

[tepples]

As if RIAA and MPAA weren't enough, now this NOAA: Who's come next, AAA?

What about the GNAA, the national association for the advancement of gay colored people?

Re:NAAGCP

[WED Fan]

What about the GNAA, the national association for the advancement of gay colored people?

It's Gaylie Colored People. I am so sick and tired of "you people" getting that wrong.

You people in Hiney Town are all butts, and those of you with the Crue Crust Crayon are just rententive assholes.

NOAA can stick it up their ...

[Hackerlish]

> NOAA can take its license requirement and stick it up its... er, NOAA doesn't even have one of those.

On the contrary, Doctor Ruby, this exercise has shown that the NOAA has *MANY* of those. Seriously. Both parties say government should "get out of people's lives", then let this stuff go on. Personally I'd tell any sniveling NOAA bureaucrat who als me up to do exactly what you suggested. They seem to forget they work for us, the taxpayer.

I hope at least one team blatantly violates this.

[pecosdave]

I really hope at least one team blatantly violates this, posts the pictures all over the place, dares NOAA to do something about it, and rallies the public behind them.

Not on is Doc Ruby right about NOAA not having any power to enforce laws that they make, it's not the kind of law our government should be making anyways. As citizens we need to figure out where this law comes from and weed out the fascist who pushed it - I don't care what political leanings they have. It's akin to laws that Moa had (has), Hitler had, and our previous fascist presidents had, that I wont name to prevent thwacking that bee hive.

Jurisdiction

[ryu1232]

How far up does someone have to go to be outside of NOAA's jurisdiction? Asking for this license sounds illegal. NOAA does not own the planet. This sounds very childish.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Ken McE]

"How far up does someone have to go to be outside of NOAA's jurisdiction? "

I'm betting they can extend their jurisdiction waaay faster than you can travel.

Tinfoil Joke trumps Logic. Again.

[Fantastic Lad]

My hometown still has a law on the books that cars aren't allowed to scare the horses travelling down Main Street. Anyone want to get up in arms about that one while we're at it?

If I were living in your town, I certainly might complain if some heavily lobbied government group suddenly started forcing people to buy licenses based on that law.

-FL

Oh, BTW, check out my sig...

[j_w_d]

Uhm, perhaps there's a bit of humour impairment you need treated? Note the parent was modded "funny." That would be as in absurd. There's no possible way that taking a picture from anywhere let alone from space could be equated with stealing a CD. The silly NOAA act being made fun of is largely to insure that no one takes high-res images of Israel from space. They don't want you to know what REALLY goes on in some of those kibbutzes (and yes, that was humorous in intent).

A broken window fallacy

[tepples]

Outlawing designated drivers forces people to use taxis, which helps the economy.

For those at home who don't see the sarcasm, this is called a broken window fallacy.

Maritime law as precedent on Jurisdiction?

[JSBiff]

When considering questions of Jurisdiction like this, certain thorny questions arise. Is there 'no' law in space? Could you 'legally' commit murder in space?

There is a historical precedent for dealing with a similar question which arose in Maritime law - does any country have any legal authority on ocean-going vessels in international waters? People, fundamentally, don't want to lose all protection of law in such situations.

I don't really know much about Maritime law, but my basic understanding is that every ship has to be registered with some nation, and has to fly the flag of that nation. The law of the nation whose flag you fly applies on-board that vessel when it is in international water (at least, I think that's how it works). Now, Maritime law has been 'settled' somewhat, I think, by some International Treaties, and I don't know if any such treaties exist for space.

However, dealing with the issue of Jurisdiction in space, it seems most logical to extend the concepts of Maritime law to space.

That said, I still think it's completely ridiculous to claim that it is illegal to photograph the Earth, but there may be a precendent in Maritime law for US 'vessels' to have to submit to US jurisdication in legal matters when they are outside of the physical boundaries of US jurisdiction.

Re:Maritime law as precedent on Jurisdiction?

[Doc Ruby]

There is already law in space. The spacefaring nations have all signed treaties that agree to rules negotiated in the 1960s-70s. They are binding in those countries within their borders.

This is indeed similar to maritime law, but it is a separate body of law with explicit rules for space.

You sort of answer the question yourself

[JSBiff]

Have you ever heard of Maritime Law? There is such a thing as law and jurisdiction in "International Waters". I don't really know if Maritime law extends to space, but it would sort of make sense to use the same, or substantially similar, principles. Otherwise, murder in space would be legal. Rape would be legal. Whatever. Do we really want that?

That said, I agree that it's somewhat ridiculous to say you need a license to photograph the earth. I suspect that a lot of this comes from the US Govt wanting to not have people take photos of certain government facilities on earth. All I can say to that is, if something is so secret, *hide* it - don't just pass some law that people can't photograph your country, cause I'm pretty certain that won't stop the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Europeans, or whoever else has a national space program.

Found an interesting link

[JSBiff]

After posting, I wanted to find some sort of source which validates what I've said. I found a link about law and jurisdiction in international waters:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mlawofsea.html/

It really seems like the most logical way to deal with Jurisdiction in space would be to simply extend existing maritime law principles, which basically say that the Jurisdiction of a Nation is 'carried' by vessels that fly its flag. Of course, that just means that all the space tourism will launch from the Bahamas, and fly the Bahamian (is that the right form for the adjective?) flag.

Re:Found an interesting link

[tqft]

The US and the Law Of The Sea do not mix well.

There is a vast amount of material (apply Sturgeon's Law liberaly) on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#United_States_non-ratification
"Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ. ...
Due to Part XI, the US refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the Convention. Even though the United States is not a party to the treaty, it considers many of the remaining provisions as binding as customary international law."

There is a long history on this - part of the reason the Treaty of Versailles was initally rejected had to do with Law Of The Sea articles (specifically potential restrictions on the US in pursuit of its interests).

Re:I certainly hope that they plan to ignore this.

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone in such a team, Yes, we plan on ignoring those fascist bastards. Let them try to take the images. (We also don't actually plan to image earth. our cameras are more for lunar imaging and won't even be exposed during flight.)

call NOAA for more info

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest we call and get more info, according to this:

"If you think this may apply to your team, NOAA strongly encourages you to contact
us for a non-binding consultation at:
Email: noaa.crsl@noaa.gov
Phone: 301-713-2024 ext 213/202"

Well, that's it then...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a law, no way of getting around that. If only there was a way to change laws or petition the government or somehow influence the makeup of elected officials such that they tend to reflect some-if-not-all of our beliefs and expectations.

Oh, well... back to your regularly scheduled Slashdot rant already in progress.

Re:So, at what distance from the earth's surface..

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a license at all. The law refers specifically to satellites. Since you're holding the camera, I doubt it would be considered a remote sensing system. This regulation is only designed for people who send up remote satellites with terrestrial downlinks, not people who go up in space with cameras.

Note that NOAA wasn't saying that a license was required, merely that it could be necessary.

dom

haha

[Jane Q. Public]

I like your tag.

What natural non-man-made law does this follow?

[FazzMunkle]

I mean, logically. There comes a point when patents are meaningless for certain things. This is very ridiculous.

Mod Swooosh

[WED Fan]

Flamebait? Wow, someone sure missed the point.

Re:I hope at least one team blatantly violates thi

[Anonymous Coward]

The best funded team so far, Odyssey Moon, is based in the Isle of Man, so they are not subject to NOAA (or indeed any American) regulations.

Is that that a global ban ...

[Rockin'Robert]

... or, just a load of local wankers terrorising US slaves (even the ones that are 'space tourists')? If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. --Sir Winston Churchill

Did nobody read the actual text of the act?

[mark-t]

In section 960.3: "Small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote sensing space systems." So it's perfectly legal to take pictures from space with a conventional camera without any license whatsoever.

Re:Did nobody read the actual text of the act?

[knorthern knight]

> In section 960.3: "Small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote sensing
> space systems." So it's perfectly legal to take pictures from space with a conventional
> camera without any license whatsoever.

You can tell the law was passed in 1992. Nowadays, "a small, hand-held camera" can be a multi-megapixel unit with internal stabiliser. If you're enough of a geek, remove the IR filter (warning... voids the warranty) and you get decent night-time photos.

Re:Did nobody read the actual text of the act?

[mark-t]

You'd have a hard time, I expect, trying to argue that a camera installed into a satellite is a handheld one, as there'd be nobody else up there in space with it holding it in their hands.

Re:Did nobody read the actual text of the act?

[Teancum]

Where the heck is section 960.3? I don't see it (unless you are trying to make a parody situation out of this).

Yeah, I'm calling your bluff. And I'm looking at USC 15-82 - "LAND REMOTE SENSING POLICY" and don't find these words in there.

Re:Did nobody read the actual text of the act?

[mark-t]

I'm looking at "15 CFR 960 Licensing of Private Land Remote-Sensing Systems; Final Rule", dated April 25, 2006. The link to it in PDF format was from here.

Re:Did nobody read the actual text of the act?

[Teancum]

In other words, this isn't even a part of the law, as you are implying, but an administrative interpretation of the law. Subject to change from one administration to the next. This language simply isn't even in the actual text of the law itself.

Still, I would have to grant you that *IF* somebody was fined for taking a quick snapshot out of Spaceship 2, they could go back to this "ruling" and provide evidence that such action was uncalled for.

I still need to grok this body of regulations, and it is not entirely clear under what authority NOAA has to regulate this activity as performed by private individuals operating from privately financed and launched spacecraft.

Re:Did nobody read the actual text of the act?

[mark-t]

Ah... well, all I can offer in my defense on that point is that it wasn't my intent to deliberately misinform.

Pictures OK if Cameras Approved by Microsoft

[ImitationEnergy]

This just sets us up to have to buy approved cameras from Microsoft, that's all. Nothing to see here, move along. Uhm, my web pages are still free to access...

How F**king Dare They

[flyneye]

The complete height of hubris,to License(permission)to take pictures of the planet we stand on and share.
        This is completely overboard and out of the realm of the constitutional place of the government.
        The only way to end this is to ignore it and take all the pictures you want.They don't own it so screw em.If they try to enforce it resist even up to firearms.This is the patriotic way of telling the government where to get off.Revolution.
            If more people revolted at the governments folly rather than rolling over and taking it in the ass,we would have less rather than more interference from big brother at the cost of their lives.
                  Complete bullshit,get a rope!

Re:How F**king Dare They

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to end this is to ignore it and take all the pictures you want.They don't own it so screw em.If they try to enforce it resist even up to firearms.This is the patriotic way of telling the government where to get off.Revolution.

Yeah, good luck with your rifles and handguns against tanks, airplanes, missiles and tens of thousands of troops. You'd be dead or off to gitmo's domestic equivalent before you could hardly fire a shot.
(Not defeatism; just cold hard reality)

Re:How F**king Dare They

[flyneye]

He who would trade his liberty for safety deserves neither.(not defeatism,just cold hard reality)

         

Does this apply to human eyes

[Anonymous Coward]

Its interesting to wonder if the act applies to human eyeballs as they are 'capable of actively or passively sensing the Earth's surface, including bodies of water, from space by making use of the properties of the electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected, or diffracted by the sensed objects'.

This is of course the reduction to absurdity for the act

The NOAA is full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another federal bureaucracy that thinks its really in charge of everything and everybody. I wish there was a Libertarian in office who would fire the lot of them.

Work at NOAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at NOAA, and internally the joke is that our acronym stands for No Organization At All. That letter must have been generated by one of the alien life-forms in our legal department. No one in our technical staff would be so brain-dead.

Amazing Kevlar

[Amazing Kevlar]

What if you launch from South America on an ESA project? Do you need a license from a United States bureaucracy to photograph Ayers Rock from Space? Can anyone else picture the total demise of the American space industry. (Not saying 'good' or 'bad'. Just saying)

The law says you can, that's why

[Catalina588]

http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-legislative-history-of-the-communications-act-of-1934-by-max-d-paglin.jsp

The Communications Act of 1934 (see above) reserves the electromagnetic spectrum for the People. NASA has no legislative authority to control communications in space, as Russia, China, Japan, and any other sovereign states operating in space will insist.

What are they thinking? Sounds like NASA is truly out of missions.

Re:I certainly hope that they plan to ignore this.

[Teancum]

The penalty for failure to comply with this law is $10k USD per day that you are out of compliance.

Assuming you decide to flip off NOAA, only to reverse course after you get a court summons to pay up the fine.... it could take up to 120 days just to get the license.

I don't know how long the Lunar XPrize folks plan to take in terms of getting to the Moon and what activities they plan on doing once they are there (like taking a picture of the Earth from the Moon), it could add up to quite a bit of money.

Somebody with sufficiently deep pockets may still want to challenge NOAA (and therefore the U.S. government as a whole) on this issue, but it wouldn't be cheap.

Privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds ridiculous for a whole-earth photo, but imagine if they were taking like 1 foot resolution photos of earth. This is probably what this was intended to cover. It could really get out of hand otherwise, with what a satellite costs any more, I could otherwise see private companies getting 1-foot-resolution satellites just to collect marketing info even (what kind of car is parked at this address? etc.)

          I'd assume in a case where it's like a 4096x4096 picture or something, NOAA would just rubberstamp it basically.