Satellite Pics Going Dark? 369
isdale writes "Defense Tech reports the U.S. Gov't. is proposing to exempt satellite images from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The proposed exemption has already passed the Senate and awaits House/Senate conference committee this month. Not only does the exemption apply to Gov't. satellite images, but also any commercial satellite images the gov't buys and 'any... other product that is derived from such data.' That would include maps, reports, news footage, etc. This would heavily impact news gathering and probably the income of commercial satellite operators - who would only be able to sell to the U.S. Govt. And how big is the deficit already?" peter303 writes with a more optimistic story in USA Today " about building and launching a satellite for as little as $65K," as long as you can squeeze it into a 4 inch-cube.
Say goodbye to Xplanet? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet? (Score:2, Interesting)
How long before your GPSr goes dark, too?
Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet? (Score:3, Informative)
XPlanet takes its data from university of Dundee, which uses MeteoSat. From meteosat's page [eumetsat.de], they say:
End of another domestic market (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
I think what you mean is "another nail in the coffin of privatized American space ventures". Anyone in Europe, meanwhile, interested in privatized space ventures would be dancing for joy at news like this; the U.S. congress would have just handed them a market on a silver platter.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
On a hopefully unrelated note, I noticed the following in my web server logs: /faq/satellite_photo/ HTTP/1.0" 200 4449 "http://www.terraserver.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (CK-DNJ702R1)"
149.101.1.128 - - [07/Sep/2004:08:48:12 -0600] "GET
That IP address resolves to wdcsun28.usdoj.gov ... and the referral of www.terraserver.com is pretty odd too ... and 10 minutes later, the IP address 149.101.1.116 (resolves as wdcsun16.usdoj.gov) looked at the same page ... but so far, no other accesses from 149.101.*.* addresses - have the black helocopters been dispatched?!? ;-)
Re:End of another domestic market (Score:4, Insightful)
Implying that this is going to destroy the domestic satellite market? You're an idiot. Seriously.
Lets look at this. Government wants to protect data that protects its soldiers and 'operations'. Solution? They go to satellite corps and say "We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse." And they *OVERPAY* them to not distribute or sometimes even take photos.
That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY.
When the government isn't doing this, they're back to on their own and competing.
The government has been doing this for *DECADES*. And you know what? American companies still have satellites taking photos! LIKE OMG. It's freaking amazing how when a company gets paid insane margins to do something that they manage to survive.
The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is: the images the government buys can't be made public, ever. That's a serious concern and killer of our right and power to audit our government.
BTW, you can bet your sweetass we do these same deals with foreign companies.
Re:End of another domestic market (Score:2)
People rely on both of those techs, very much. Without them we will fall behind really fast.
Weather is done by, Radar, sat. images, and stations all over the place. You can't track a hurricane if you can't see it coming because radar is only good for a few hundred miles.
Re:End of another domestic market (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah its like shooting fish in a barrel!
Re:End of another domestic market (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a story a while back about the US military forgetting to tell the satellite imaging companies not to take pictures of Afganistan. Because they were late they had to pay to get those pictures of the market.
This does suggest that you are wrong. AFAIK whenever the US military doesn't want any private companies looking, they just need to say so. Yeah... i guess you *could* call it an offer they can't refuse.
Re:End of another domestic market (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always for our protection.
That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY
Great. Another taxpayer funded pyramid scheme. Another way for you and I to subsidize some businessman that we've never met who happens to have a lobbying buddy in Washington.
The government has been doing this for *DECADES*
And not just in the satellite industry. My pocketbook is pleading for this crap to stop.
The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is:
Lobbying groups get Congress to steal our tax money, again, as usual?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:End of another domestic market (Score:4, Insightful)
So I can be secretly held (shadow detainees)
in a secret facility (hide and seek from Red Cross)
awaiting my secret trial (military courts for civilian American and foreign nationals)
for breaking a secret law (recent slashdot)
for looking at a secret map (how do we know which ones are OK?)
derived from secret satellite data (that was formerly readily available).
Yes I suppose us Slashdoters are paranoid. If freedom is relative as the Chinese government once professed, maybe we are making the rest of the world a free and democratic society by moving the often referenced "America as a model for a free society" to a police state of Orwellian proportions. Kind of a perverse way of liberating the world isn't it?
Re:End of another domestic market (Score:5, Insightful)
The important questions are how this affects our rights, whether it will improve security, and which outweighs the other. I'm still thinking about that.
You're missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
That means that the gov't can create a blank spot on the map for regions where they have "special interests". These interests could be anything from military bases (think, Guantanimo) to war zones (insert obvious choices here) to public utilities (nuclear power plants) to national parks (oil drilling in ANWAR or logging in Yellowstone).
Also, I do not believe that the satellite owners will have the choice of not selling exclusive rights to the gov't. I think that the licenses that allow these companies to operate require them to grant this type of exclusive license to any data that the gov't wants. (I could be wrong on this, but I remember reading it somewhere.)
Re:You really are missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Terraserver (Score:2, Interesting)
So... MS perhaps won't be happy about this... or do they care
Already Done (Score:3, Interesting)
Capitol hill, too. (Score:3, Interesting)
How long before the terrorists look for targets by looking for blurs in the terraserver database?
Cryptome (Score:2, Informative)
http://cryptome.org/gates-eyeball.htm
http://c
http://crypto
http://cryptome.org/dncp
http://cryptome.org/dcbnt/dcbnt-ey
http://cryptome.org/fleet-eyeball.htm
So just dont sell to the govt? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? (Score:5, Funny)
Noo. Way!!! Slashdot readers not reading the article and jumping to conclusions? Perhaps we need a "Jumping to Conclusions Mat"?
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? (Score:2)
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? (Score:2)
You know, I have to agree with you. I just don't see how this will "turn off the spigot", as it seems to just apply to things that The Government buys being exempt from FOI act.
Too many folks just aren't reading the article again (What else is new, this is /. afterall)
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why bother when you can just set up shop overseas? The space industry seems to be doing well over in Israel, and India seems to be doing a good job at scooping up all our outsourcing desires, so when you hinder business, if they're smart they just go somewhere more friendly.
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the Freedom of Information Act only applies to the government, one would think.
If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.
It wouldn't. In fact, such would be unconstitutional prior restraint, which the Freedom of Information Act has no power to effect, as per above.
This is only about what information a citizen has a right to obtain directly from the government, not censorship of what information he might obtain from some other source.
KFG
KFG
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? (Score:4, Insightful)
It wouldn't. In fact, such would be unconstitutional prior restraint, which the Freedom of Information Act has no power to effect, as per above. This is only about what information a citizen has a right to obtain directly from the government, not censorship of what information he might obtain from some other source.
Thank you for helping clear that up. I thought that was the case as I RTFA and at no point took away the idea that the government was going to censor all satellite data, but rather just not give away their own for free.
As a corollary: Wouldn't this rather boost private satellite imaging if news stations were forced to gather their own images instead of just copying whatever the U.S. government has on file?
not practical. (Score:2)
Thats like telling a vender not to sell to his most reliable customer. No one is their right mind will turn down federal money. What are some of the other uses for satellite imagary weather maps, alta surveys, and other either gov funded or non profit studies.
Alternate ways to achieve their goals. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals. (Score:5, Insightful)
War on Terror
War on Poverty
War on Internet Piracy
What exactly does 'only during wartime' mean these days?
Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals. (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is at war right now. The US has always been at war.
Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals. (Score:2)
Because there is enough conflict going on around the world that the government can declare "wartime" pretty well whenever it feels like it.
Clintons bombing of the former Yugoslavia was done without a declaration of war, as was Bush's attack on Afghanistan (despite the events of 9/11/2001, there wasn't a formal declaration of war by either side)
Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals. (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this include terraserver, and more... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does this include terraserver, and more... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does this include terraserver, and more... (Score:2)
Re:Does this include terraserver, and more... (Score:3, Funny)
Bob Thaves (creator of the 'Frank and Ernest' comic strip) had a bit to say on this issue.
http://www.comics.com/comics/franknernest/archive
Why? (Score:2)
Anyone care to enlighten me?
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight: Terrorists might be able to use satellite imagery to plan an armed assault on some target in the US. The response is to limit 1st amendment rights, but to leave 2nd amendment rights unchanged.
I guess it just depends on who's slippin' you the bills.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
is this because the law is perfect already? do the current measures already prevent suspected terrorists buying grenade launchers?
I can't remember the Simpsons quote verbatim but something like:
Gun shop: "lets see, you've been arrested, have spent time in a mental institution, have severe alcohol problems..."
Homer: "d'oh!"
Gun shop: "don't worry, that only limits you to 3 handguns"
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
The First amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [findlaw.com]
The FO
Figures (Score:2)
On a serious note, this is a very scary thing. The whole point of having NASA and a commercial space program, is that the general knowledge of all mankind is supposed to be increasing. How are we supposed to enhance our knowledge i
eye in the sky (Score:2)
- The Rolling Stones, "Fingerprint File" [lyricsdepot.com], _It's Only Rock and Roll_
Re:eye in the sky (Score:4, Interesting)
Up here in space
I'm looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do
You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye
Always in focus
You can't feel my stare
I zoom into you
You don't know I'm there
I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye
Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
There's nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye
Protected. detective. electric eye
--------
Way to go Bush Administration (Score:2, Insightful)
-- Proud to be Canadian. Sickened to be so close to the potential high tech equivelant of the USSR.
Re:Way to go Bush Administration (Score:3, Informative)
I think someone is overreacting (Score:5, Informative)
From the site: The committee recommends a provision that would exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), (section 552 of title 5, United States Code), data that are collected by land remote sensing and are prohibited from sale to customers other than the United States and its affiliated users under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, (section 5601 et seq. of title 15, United States Code).. The exemption would also include any imagery and other product that is derived from such data. State and local laws mandating disclosure by a State or local government would be preempted. (Bold emphasis mine)
So this would appear to mean that only some subset of stuff, which is prohibited from sale currently, would be removed from FOIA.
What, exactly, this is I do not know, but it wouldn't surprise me if this means "When the military buys a commercial satellite pass over a suspected terrorist camp and forbids the satellite company from reselling the image (which seems reasonable, otherwise there would be a huge market in 'see what the DoD is taking pictures of' industry), no one can file a FOIA request to access that image".
Re:I think someone is overreacting (Score:2)
Isn't the point that anything that could even *remotely* be considered to be related to national security already is exempt from FOIA requests?
Please enlighten me if this exemption somehow doesn't apply to data from commercial satellite providers already; I could be wrong. But the point of TFA does seem to be that the recommendation is over-reaching because it would cut off access to public information without justification.
Maybe the proposal just needs an "iff such informatio
Re:I think someone is overreacting (Score:3, Informative)
From what you quote, it sounds like that they want to exempt things like photos of Area 51 from FOIA-- but that's probably not what they're actually doing. Interestingly, in 15 USC 82 [cornell.edu] I see no prohibitions of sale of any data to anyone, but I may have missed it. Or that part of the law may be classified, and exempt from FOIA requests. =)
BUt isn't this our money? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil (Score:2)
The increased accuracy was provided by WAAS which sends it's position which is then used by the GPS receiver to 'correct' its position readings.
For a long time the altitude reading on my GPS units would remain constant but now it jinks around like a weasel on a SAM hunt. Note my GPS units do not have a WAAS receiver so I
Oh No! Keep the pictures away from terrorists!!!! (Score:2)
TimeCube! (Score:5, Funny)
Of course! Must be Satellite in Cube! Dumbass! Even Time obey Cube [timecube.com]! NASA is Stupid for not obey Cube design! Dumbass!
--Rob
Logical continuation of earlier censorship. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Logical continuation of earlier censorship. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not there are US forces present (and I'll bet there are) that has nothing to do with us being able to obtain actual evidence about what happened under the FOIA. That is the purpose of the FOAI.
Unless you can specify exactly what is "irrational" about any post t
Ignorance is Strength (Score:5, Interesting)
Story Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Story Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
1) nothing should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
Hey, cool! I've always wanted to know where every CIA agent in the world was stationed, what name he was going by and where I might be able to find him after business hours. Err... purely for a social visit, you understand.
I would love to be able to FOIA our governments defense plans and publish them to the world. Or to demand the Army tell me exactly how they were going to move in Iraq before they ever went. I'm sure Saddam would have
Re:Story Misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
Having said that I suppose that that viewpoint will appear to "extreme" to many people reading this forum. To them I'd argue that there only ought to be FOIA-restricted data when there is some form of democratic oversight to prevent the government from declaring anything it wants to be a "security risk". The current proposal we're discussing doesn't do that so it's a grave threat to the limited form of democracy now in operation in the US.
Re point 2: CNN, Fox and the rest of the media are mainly outposts of government propaganda. I can't think of a large enough "leftwing" news organization in the US that could stump up enough money to purchase satellite imagery if the government were bidding against them. There are isolated journalists that might be interested in doing so, but most "journalists" are quite happy to retype and regurgitate the lines fed to them by their official sources (whether they're official embedded or not).
Add to this that the "satellite" companies are usually deeply entangled with the military and defense establishments and you won't see them doing much to rock the boat and advertise that they have embarrassing pictures to sell. Otherwise goodbye contracts, goodbye licenses.
These "shots at the war" are completely relevant and pertinent to the story. The war is probably why this story exists.
Is this a recommendation? (Score:2)
Urm how are these stories even related (aside from them both being about satellites)? Are we all supposed to chip in and buy a satellite for taking our own pictures? (Wondering if an X-10 camera plus transmitter will fit into a 4" cube).
Re:Is this a recommendation? (Score:2)
But think of the terrorists! (Score:4, Interesting)
not the end of the world (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, the end result seems to be that news organisations have to pay market prices for their information, and private satellite operators make a few more sales...
$40,000 for a cubesat (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:$40,000 for a cubesat (Score:3)
No? Hope you like pictures with lots of spurious pixels in them.
Were the microcontrollers rad-hard?
No? Hope you like your sat crashing every five mintes.
Were the batteries rated to go from +100C in the sun to -100C in the shadow? In vacuum?
No? Oh well, with no imaging element and no computer you don't need them anyway.
Was your sat vibration and acceleration rated?
No? Too bad it shook itself apart on launch.
Building space rated hardware IS HARD. Loo
Re:$40,000 for a cubesat (Score:3, Informative)
Blind Spot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blind Spot (Score:3, Funny)
Good Thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no, no! (Score:5, Informative)
This is a very specific class of satellite photo. Commercial photos sold to private users are still legal; so are government photos obtained via non-exclusive contracts. The submitter and article have the facts all wrong!
To be really thorough... (Score:3, Interesting)
This accomplishes nothing, and is therefore obviously silly. There is a mindset back of it that seems to think only the US and US companies have satellite images useful for terrorist purposes. Actually, it's an incredibly close parallel to encryption, in many ways. It's going to hurt US companies, it'll push the supply of that data overseas, and it'll do nothing to stop the bad-guys from getting the data, either.
I should probably write to Bernie tonight, since it's beyond Leahy and Jeffords already.
Re:To be really thorough... (Score:3, Interesting)
Being European myself I hate so say that, but: Be sure that the USA will "kindly ask" the European government to adopt a similar law -- which, of course, will then be adopted.
You got DMCA. We got something similar.
You have software patents. We're in the process of adopting them.
You got the "war against terror". We send you the entire passenger data as requested, even though i
I heard about this a couple days ago... (Score:3, Interesting)
And about the other story: WOW. I would love the chance to send up a four-inch cube into space. God alone knows what the hell I would do with it -- I'm no electronics guy -- but the possibilities are simply too cool to be believed. I'd be tempted to go back to university and get an engineering degree just to be able to be part of a project like that.
But hey, who says that's necessary? $40K for a launch, even U$, isn't that much if you get a bunch of people together. There's people that chip in to buy an airplane [avweb.com] -- how long 'til we see people (besides the good folks running OSCAR [amsat.org], that is) getting together to build and launch their own cubesat? God knows I'd be there in a heartbeat...
There are other sources of satellite images (Score:2)
Ball bearings in a 4-in tube? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ball bearings in a 4-in tube? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you wanted to do that, I think you would have to launch it yourself. Build a rocket that could get it into the
Crazy interpretation in that story... (Score:5, Informative)
They're purchasing exlusive rights over certain image areas to avoid having to classify the data output from all the commercial satellite operators.
Maybe you could argue that they should just go classify it anyways, but the result will be the same. The Government reserves the right to tell commercial image satellite operators where they can't take pictures, or can't sell the images they do take. This is not news. The mechanism by which that is enforced is just adjusting a bit.
Re:Crazy interpretation in that story... (Score:3, Interesting)
The results are _not_ the same. Classification is subject to internal review, is available to the Congressional oversight committees, and expires after a certain period of time. Revalation of classified material is a crime with severe penalties.
This, however, is a way to toss the images into a black box and not let them come out except when the DoD wants to trot out selected images of their own choice. Not being classified, they wouldn't be requried to show the pictur
Re:Crazy interpretation in that story... (Score:3, Interesting)
True, they might not ever become public (though are likely to do so eventually...). But Congress can subpoena any government info it wants to. And regularly does. Commercial proprietary info issues and classi
Forget "conspiracy theory" this is damned obvious! (Score:3, Insightful)
WHERE THE HELL ARE WE?!
How long before we're like USSR (Score:3, Interesting)
Climate data?... (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of satellite imagery that I have seen deals with climate measuring. It's not clear from reading the proposal itself [fas.org] if this "unclassified" data is included.
<AluminumFoilDeflectorBeanie mode="On"> might be a handy way to keep those filthy pinko commies and terrorists from showing evidence of climate change and messing up our plans to use up as much as possible before The Rapture(tm) comes, using our precious, precious unclassified photos...</AluminumFoilDeflectorBeanie>
That's the part that gets me - they're talking SPECIFICALLY about "unclassified" (i.e. NOT "Top Secret(tm)", etc.) information. The recommendation in the proposal explicitly mentions, in effect, the fact that, well, they COULD just classify the stuff that they don't want to show to potential commie terrorists (or the people who paid for it e.g. US Taxpayers) but that's just so inconvenient to have to do...
More grist for the Aluminum-Foil-Deflector-Beanie-defended conspiracy mill (from the proposal):
"Compelled[by the FOIA, etc.] release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national security by mandating disclosure to the general public upon request. While the data and imagery could be protected from disclosure under FOIA by classifying them, the United States prefers to keep them unclassified. Unclassified matter is more easily shared with coalition partners in contingency operations and with State and local officials in disaster relief and homeland security operations.[emphasis added]
It's terrible to think what horrible disasters could befall the US while we dare to "remove any profit motive" from taxpayer-funded "remote sensing" (which, presumably, includes imagery from sources other than satellites as well?) projects. I know I would feel safer if I wasn't allowed to look at this unclassified material that I'm paying for... And, gosh, I also feel better knowing my highly-paid legislators are Doing Something(tm) about, um, I guess terrorists or environmentalists or something.
Inconvenient reality? Just say no! (Score:5, Interesting)
During the Bush propaganda run-up to the 1991 Gulf war, the Bushies (same guys as the current Bushies, hence the name) put out the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had amassed troops on the border of Saudi Arabia. Stopping that massive invasion of Saudi Arabia was one of the major reasons to start the war.
Here's the part the U.S. has total amnesia about: news organizations, after the war, simply requested satellite photos of the Saudi border in question at the time we insisted the Iraqis were amassing its invasion.
Guess what? There were no troops there. Empty land. The troops story, like the Iraqis-threw-preemies-from-incubators crock put out by a Washington DC PR firm, was a "misstatement", as the same Bushies still call such things today.
Or a big, fat, loathesome lie.
Now, here in '01 the Bushies have created exceptions from the Freedom of Information Act. Lookee here, three years after that, they are using that questionably legal tactic to shut the hole in the wall of their fake universe that tripped them up 13 years ago: the presence of a camera.
They really don't like cameras, unless its in the hands of the police, taking YOUR picture when you dare to protest the Bushies in public.
If a third party places cameras in orbit, I guarantee they will threaten the owners into compliance with their demands, or they will reserve the right to blow them out of the sky.
This isn't flamebait. This is a scream. They are blindfolding us and gagging us, and they don't even bother to justify it. They just assume we won't care. And they are right.
Re:Crinkle crinkle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Crinkle crinkle (Score:2, Insightful)
Now they can send us to war on claims that they have photos of chemical weapons labs in whatever country. But of coarse we can't see them, the photos are all classified
Right, because in the days when we *could* see the photos, we all saw right through the deceit. Powell's performance in front of the UN didn't fool anybody - mobile weapons labs indeed! Harumph! Any fool can see that those trucks are for filling helium balloons.
Re:Unreal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unreal (Score:5, Informative)
This would only prohibit the release of data that is already prohibited from sale to customers other than the US Government.
As it currently stands, commerical imagery operators are prohibited from selling certain data to anyone but the government. Third parties cannot buy this data. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from filing a Freedom of Information request once the government buys it. This would close that loophole.
Re:Unreal (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Unreal (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the present government is too secretive, and I can't swear the Secret Service has never shown up at somebody's door to politely suggest cancelling a request, but the act is used all the time.
Re:Unreal (Score:3, Insightful)
(To quote from the proposed bill: Compelled release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national secur
"And One School Bus" (Score:3, Interesting)
As it currently stands, commerical imagery operators are prohibited from selling certain data to anyone but the government. Third parties cannot buy this data. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from filing a Freedom of Information request once the government buys it. This would close that loophole.
And open another one - for the government to use to slam the door on FOIA
Re:Unreal (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm somewhat confused. Can you explain to me again why I can't look at unclassified information?
Re:Unreal (Score:3, Informative)
There are specific legal guidelines regarding classified information. This includes how to classify it, how to store it, how to transport it, and when/how to destroy it. There is a lot of information that should be kept private, but doesn't meet the guidelines
Re:Unreal (Score:4, Informative)
Good to know that they would want to take away technology access that allowed people to evacuate before the hurricanes in Florida. Un-fucking-real.
First line of the story: "You might be able to see the hurricanes heading for Florida. Maybe. But just about all other commercial satellite imagery could be put off-limits, if a new Senate bill goes through as planned."
Re:Unreal (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Unreal (Score:3, Informative)