NOAA Requires License For Photos of the Earth 311
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?"
Absurd! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Absurd! (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
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!!!
Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants (Score:5, Informative)
In the meantime, you can use existing satellite photos to image your house [komar.org] and here's a cool way to get a nifty Earth view. [fourmilab.ch]
Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 al
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a link to the act itself:
http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/15USCch82.html [nasa.gov]
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants (Score:5, Informative)
I'd call that a broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org].
Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, never welcomed our road to hell paving overlords.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, if you read the house bill, link [loc.gov]
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
As for the space tourist taking along a camera, that's not "remote sensing".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, Wow i didnt think you could copyright THE EARTH.. What next? The Moon!
Naming rights (Score:5, Funny)
That's the Budweiser Moon© now, they paid for the naming rights.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Though to be fair most of those are innovative new ways to drop your pants. The rest are owned by the Chattanooga Bakery [wikipedia.org] for it's chocolate dipped gram cracker and marshmallow snacks.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
M-O-O-N, that spells Pepsi®!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What will happen? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What will happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Cuba ever gets its act together, it could become the hub of private space.
Secrecy to the nth absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, BTW, check out my sig... (Score:3, Funny)
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).
Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Score:3, Informative)
Blame this, the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 [nasa.gov]
And this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Score:4, Informative)
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 )
It's a privacy thing. (Score:5, Funny)
Europe is just as bad (Score:2)
Have you ever seen how Denmark is kicking the Scandinavian balls?
Re: (Score:2)
You could at least wear a New Jersey, too.
This is actually for real (Score:5, Informative)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c1029W3AOE:e25773 [loc.gov]:
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.
Pooh... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Of course they have! And the law shall apply to the entire world!
Re: (Score:2)
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 freed
No... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
BS... (Score:2)
Beyond which, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to restrict non-interstate, non-foreign travel? Nowhere.
Re:This is actually for real (Score:5, Interesting)
Planting the Flag in the New World (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [wisc.edu] 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: (Score:2)
My response? See figure one.
http://www.things.org/~jym/fun/see-figure-1.html [things.org]
Completely Ridiculous (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Did you bother to read?
Close your eyes! (Score:5, Funny)
That would seem to include eyesight. I guess everyone will need to fly blind.
And people wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 of 'land remote sensing' (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
easy answer ; (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Uhm ... say what? (Score:2)
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
Space is International territory (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Dont excuse me NOAA (Score:3, Insightful)
you cant either. probably the underlying reason is NOONE CAN COPYRIGHT/PATENT EARTH
so cut the crap.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And the Russians and Chinese said: (Score:2)
We. Don't. Think. So.
RS
In the Soviet States of America...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How much? (Score:2)
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 the
Woah, learn something new every day (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Lose the tinfoils hats... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Tinfoil Joke trumps Logic. Again. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Prior Art! (Score:2, Interesting)
Apollo 8 Earthrise Dec 1968
From Gooogle Images [google.com]
And the first TV photo of Earth [nasa.gov] from TIROS 1 on 1 April 1960.
(April Fools Day- how apropos)
They should tell NOAA (Score:2)
Uhmmm - Sorry NOAA (Score:2)
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...
legally speaking (Score:3, Informative)
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.
No Jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Maritime law as precedent on Jurisdiction? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ever
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
How F**king Dare They (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:On what grounds... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
He is Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So, at what distance from the earth's surface.. (Score:2)
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.