Slashdot Mirror
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?"
As if RIAA and MPAA weren't enough, now this NOAA: Who's come next, AAA?
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.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Um, Wow i didnt think you could copyright THE EARTH.. What next? The Moon!
WulframII - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Game
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.
That's the Budweiser Moon© now, they paid for the naming rights.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
Here's the direct language of the bill
I can totally understand this, If my Florida was flapping in the breeze I wouldn't want people taking snapshots either.
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.
That would seem to include eyesight. I guess everyone will need to fly blind.
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.
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'?
What are they gonna do, shoot down your satellites? Doubtful. They have NO AA.
God spoke to me.
Same thing.
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.
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.
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.
We are all just people.
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?
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.
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.
http://www.santacruzbynight.com/index.shtml Santa Cruz By Night Vampire Larp
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 )
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.
--
make install -not war
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