Aerial photography ban proposed for all but government

http://agbeat.com/business-news/aerial-photography-ban-proposed-for-all-but-government/

by uptown • 13 years ago

194 154 13 years ago

scarmig• 13 years ago

If I'm reading this right... it actually bans Google Maps while explicitly acknowledging the feds' right to use whatever drones they want?

We need better small government advocates.

sbhere2• 13 years ago

How about just smaller government?

greenrice• 13 years ago

How about just more efficient government with better representation of the populance?

nhaehnle6• 13 years ago

The problem is that most small government advocates are not actually working towards small government, but just towards a government that does what they want it to do.

Or they use it as a general catchphrase to abuse the slightly schizophrenic attitude of most voters, who want less government spending in the abstract, but will actually favor more (or equal to current) government spending when asked about individual programs or departments of government.

oleganza18• 13 years ago

The smallest government in the history of the world, created 300 years ago turned out to be the largest and most destructive one in the history of the world.

Suggestion: try to prove that the people who are identified with "the government" have different moral rights than you. Why they can have nukes and guns, while you cannot. And before you have a perfect conclusive proof, abstain from using any physical violence upon anybody around you. If you find a person, who will be convinced that the policeman can shoot at him when he runs away, while the person cannot shoot back, then you can shoot that person. But do not shoot those who are not so much convinced yet.

CamperBob22• 13 years ago

The smallest government in the history of the world, created 300 years ago turned out to be the largest and most destructive one in the history of the world.

Which government was that, and how'd they outdo the Soviets?

ctdonath8• 13 years ago

No.

Government should never get a pass on a prohibition just because it's the government. Au contraire: save for very narrow instances (ex.: nuclear weapons) handled with intense care and oversight, government agents should be subject to any and all restrictions inflicted upon the populace at large. People have rights and delegate them to government as granted powers, not the other way around.

baddox4• 13 years ago

On the other hand, the only organizations in history to have developed, stockpiled, and used nuclear weapons are governments.

mikeash• 13 years ago

How is that "the other hand", exactly?

ihsw• 13 years ago

You don't seem to realize how the American government works.

In all levels, from local to state to federal, their constituency consists exclusively of special interest groups whom represent businesses at large.

Consumers are left in the cold with regards to influencing policy since they are disorganized and (more importantly) they lack the political and economic will to exercise control over their government.

Consumers rarely (if ever) contribute to campaigns, lobby, or propose legislation themselves.

If you do understand it then your proposal is simply a pipe dream since this iron shield is impenetrable to individual citizenry.

ctdonath8• 13 years ago

And this is relevant to this thread how? Who is lobbying for universal areal secrecy?

BTW: you're confusing "should" with "does". I'm quite aware of how the American government works, and realize it places self-interest above even lobbyists.

lifeisstillgood7• 13 years ago

Really. What constitutes the defenders of the second-amendment - I know they are a special interests group but it seems to be a special interest of 80% of the USA

wwweston• 13 years ago

> Consumers are left in the cold with regards to influencing policy since they are disorganized and (more importantly) they lack the political and economic will to exercise control over their government.

Possibly because they think of themselves as consumers rather than citizens.

davidw• 13 years ago

> If you do understand it then your proposal is simply a pipe dream since this iron shield is impenetrable to individual citizenry.

This kind of attitude is... deep breath... calm down...

Well, it's bullshit, plain and simple.

I played a minor part in passing a law in Italy:

http://www.governo.it/Notizie/Presidenza/dettaglio.asp?d=690...

And I don't know if you've noticed over the past few days, but Italy is not exactly an easy place to get things done, with a smoothly functioning political system. Especially not for a foreigner with no connections and without oodles of money to spend on the issue.

By comparison, it's far easier for people to get involved in politics in the US if they want to work at it.

This sort of self-defeating "woe is us" attitude is garbage that will get you nowhere. If you're willing to do more than sit around carping online, there are plenty of ways of getting involved and making a difference.

merry-christmas• 13 years ago

Hah, isn't it funny how smart people (like most users of this site) are un-willing to see the obvious true (what you just wrote). Nobody likes to be told they don't matter and everybody likes to be told how important they are.

nhaehnle6• 13 years ago

Your general sentiment is laudable, but the example of nuclear weapons is rather odd. The much more obvious example is the use of force, both physical (i.e. physical violence) and economic (i.e. taxation). Without these, government cannot act in the common interest, but there are very good reasons to forbid those for everybody else.

oleganza18• 13 years ago

Taxation is not physical violence? Good luck not paying your taxes.

malandrew• 13 years ago

Is rent not a tax by another name? Same for patent royalties, etc.

You could also consider a well-funded lawsuit as the "use of force" by a private party.

ImprovedSilence• 13 years ago

Government evolves. I think some dude nailed it pretty good 2300 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes

walshemj• 13 years ago

Agreed and local government tiers worldwide should STF and stick to the local issues and not get disillusions of grandeur and get involved with things that are above their pay grade - though Germany is even worse their counties have there own secret police FFS.

webwanderings2• 13 years ago

The most depressing documentary of all time I recently watched on public television: Rise of the Drones. And to top it off, the end credit suggested that the major funding of this program was provided by Lockheed Martin!

You'd be better off not watching.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.htm...

n3rdy5• 13 years ago

> You'd be better off not watching.

Ignoring a problem usually doesn't make it less of a problem.

webwanderings2• 13 years ago

Well you're right, but we can only watch. The world is slipping out of the hand with this technology and we can already tell where it is heading. So this isn't really a "problem" anymore, as much as it is a reality.

j_s2• 13 years ago

Worth pointing out the video is available to stream directly from PBS at that link.

j_s2• 13 years ago

Clearly it's time for hobbyists to switch from making drones to making anti-drone rockets!

n3rdy5• 13 years ago

Spark gap radios and Ku-Band jammers are handy too.

protomyth5• 13 years ago

uhm....

making drone - probable talk with FAA

making anti-drone rocket - probable vigorous discussion with FAA, SWAT, ATF, DoD, and FBI with vacation in Caribbean

lifeisstillgood7• 13 years ago

Define the difference between an anti-drone rocket and a drone that oh whoops, sorry lost control there, is that your drone I crashed into ?

blhack5• 13 years ago

There is absolutely no chance that this bill will pass.

Crazy bills championed by people that either don't understand them, or are just posturing are semi-common. Just because it has been proposed, doesn't mean anything.

ctdonath8• 13 years ago

Alas, enough of them pass with serious enough consequences that we do have to watch for and actively oppose them. Prime example is NY's recent passage of the "SAFE Act".

jrockway2• 13 years ago

What's the problem with the SAFE Act? The provision where mental health providers have to become informants?

Millennium• 13 years ago

This century has already seen far too many crazy bills pass to just dismiss something like this as having no chance.

nitrogen• 13 years ago

There is absolutely no chance that this bill will pass.

There've been too many cases where it seemed this way, then the bill passed (or was only narrowly defeated), for us to ignore anything that appears to have no chance of passing.

blhack5• 13 years ago

A bill like this would royally screw over the mapping, GIS, agricultural, real estate, and film industries, and those are only the ones I can think of off hand.

I think we'll be okay.

samstave3• 13 years ago

Many times, ideas start out as super crazy simply so they can be reeled back in to the degree they really want. For example - they could back-up from "complete ban" to "must have a license/permit" and wrap some bureaucratic process around any non-governmental drone programs.

This could be a ruse to get some iterations done - they start with a drastic one to measure the reactionary sentiment to see what they can get away with.

blhack5• 13 years ago

>wrap some bureaucratic process around any non-governmental drone programs.

This is already 100% in place and has been for a long time.

btbuildem• 13 years ago

So, let me get this straight: they're proposing to prohibit anyone who may actually contribute something valuable to society from using the technology, but give full license to those pretty much guaranteed to do evil with it?

squozzer• 13 years ago

This sort of legal logic-twisting is more common than we like to admit. 1) Take a topic that has some legal buzz. 2) Draft a law that, on the surface, seems to do something about it while actually doing nothing or the opposite of what it seemed to intend. 3) Sit back and collect the cheers of the ignorant proles. e.g. Gun Owner's Protection Act of 1986, PATRIOT Act, ad nauseum.

nekojima• 13 years ago

When we fly over New Hampshire in a commercial plane, does this mean the captain or flight attendants will be obligated to tell us not to take photos of the state from the air, if any buildings are visible or identifiable as buildings based on other landmarks? Unbelievably this has been possible for well over a century (including use of air ships), only now has it become an issue for excessive regulation.

jevinskie• 13 years ago

Are roads not man made objects? Those are visible from very high altitudes!

dmckeon• 13 years ago

This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects.

Seems like a poor distinction to me - "identifiable" by what? A human eyeball, infra-red, multi-spectral analysis?

This would allow imaging of forests, fields, and streams, but not man-made objects like roads, bridges, dams, or the more navigable waters (might contain humans).

Perhaps the sponsor expects image-creators to blur out anything that might be a human or man-made object?

How would this affect the usage of self-driving cars? You could image a deer crossing the road, but not a human? (Note the prohibition is on image creation, not publication.)

n3rdy5• 13 years ago

> This would allow imaging of forests, fields, and streams, but not man-made objects like roads, bridges, dams, or the more navigable waters (might contain humans).

I wonder how much of a stretch it would be to imagine some court ruling that trees could be considered man-made objects if they were planted by humans.

glesica• 13 years ago

Or, more sinister, crops and other agricultural lands. Which would prevent monitoring by environmental groups for run-off control and such.

roc• 13 years ago

> "How would this affect the usage of self-driving cars? "

It wouldn't. Puzzlingly, this law seeks to ban aerial drone surveillance while explicitly allowing any surveillance, by person or drone, conducted by a device or person supported by the ground.

So an aerial paparazzi drone would be illegal. But a veritable army of paparazzi ground drones, even ringing a property and photographing every inch of the same people and/or structures, would be legal.

nwh• 13 years ago

Another loophole is that the bill states that any device affixed to the ground is acceptable. A weather balloon and a camera tethered to my car with several hundred meters of rope would presumably be alright.

JVIDEL• 13 years ago

I would agree if it wasn't for the recent report that FBI agents have illegally accessed the bureau's DB to look for dirt on famous/important people, either to sell that info to others or to blackmail them.

Yet another case of "who watches the watchmen?"

lifeisstillgood7• 13 years ago

Again, we need laws that stipulate three new Techno-age rights

* right to awareness of surveillance Surveillance is just sooo pervasive that trying to ban it is useless. Just require that any time anyone is able to identify or track an individual through video, data mining, or any other process, they are required to publish this within $time period - publish the date time location means and data used, along with the identifying data.

* ?

PotatoEngineer• 13 years ago

That first one reduces your privacy even further: not only does Group A track you, but now everyone knows that Group A is tracking you, allowing Group B to ask Group A for data on you.

lifeisstillgood7• 13 years ago

But now I know group b is tracking me too. Basically we have lost our privacy and we need some way of knowing who has what on us. Total transparency is the only answer - otherwise people can track me and it will never come to light - so punitive data protection measures will not work cos there is no obligation to report.

tantalor• 13 years ago

Wouldn't this make more sense as a civil matter than than a criminal misdemeanor? Then you don't have to worry about breaking the law photographing your own property.

crististm• 13 years ago

How do these bills pop-up anyway?

protomyth5• 13 years ago

Some state lawmaker who doesn't think out the consequences of a bill or gets caught in one of those "think of the children" moments writes up a crappy law.

I do believe in the 90's some extremely green (in many ways) congress-critter wrote a law that would basically make farming illegal in the USA and require quite a lot of buildings to be torn down (like the whole states of SD,ND, and WY). Bill did get some co-sponsors (tells you a little about the world there). One house rep pointed out due to the wording that all building within a mile of Central Park would have to be torn down. So ended the bill.

CamperBob22• 13 years ago

Watch "House of Cards" on Netflix if you have the opportunity. It seems pretty realistic.

sbhere2• 13 years ago

So the government wants everyone but the government to be restricted from something? Go figure!

j2d3• 13 years ago

If we make aerial cameras illegal, only criminals will have aerial cameras!

DennisP• 13 years ago

David Brin's Transparent Society gets more relevant every day.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Transparent-Society-Technology-Bet...

martinced• 13 years ago

Yeah.

And thankfully there's lots of hope in that (semi-old) David Brin essay. Technology is a multi-faceted dice and although the government is very powerful and lobbyist manage to get ever more restrictive laws passed each day, they simply cannot stop technological progress.

"Police and thieves in the streets, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunitions" are getting filmed, photographed and arrested thanks to technology (even if the government desperately tries to ban that).

There's hope and David Brin saw it a long time ago.

tokenadult• 13 years ago

From the article, "Neal Kurk (R), member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives since 1986 has recently sponsored HB 619-FN to make aerial photography illegal in their state, which many are considering a look into the future."

This is a state-level proposal in one of the smallest states in the United States. All of the comments about the "federal" or "United States" government in this thread apparently aren't based on reading the fine article. Moreover, the text of the proposed bill, "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects. In this paragraph, 'dwelling' means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more individuals," could reasonably be construed as a privacy protection. (That's the context I would expect from New Hampshire, where the state motto is "Live free or die.") The first person quoted as a specific opponent of the bill in this article (which is more balanced than the comments in this thread) is a real estate photographer. Well, yeah, maybe I as an individual don't want multiple real estate agencies flying planes over my house to take photos, possibly when I am in my yard in view of airplanes and helicopters. Reasonable minds could take either side of this bill, but don't react to the link-bait headline, but to the actual text of the bill and its context among current business practice and other legislation.

From the website's description of itself:

"About us & our story

"AGBeat is Business news, insights, tools, and inspiration for small business owners and professionals. AGBeat condenses news information on technology, business, small and medium business, NPO’s, social media, startups, real estate, economics and more, so you don’t have to.

"In 2007, AGBeat began as Agent/Genius (AG) . Fed up and disgusted with the pay to play real estate space, we decided to radically change the face of news publishing by giving industry professionals a legitimate voice.

"Successful to date in its fundamental mission, AG is a multi-award winning publication and its columnists and editors are named as some of the most influential in real estate, business, and in technology. AG is known for ripping the lid off of hot new technologies, startups, and mashups- everyone knows that if it’s on AG, it’s relevant.

"In late 2009, AG took on News and Business News, seeking to disrupt a drab and boring, and mostly pay to play business publishing space and continues to bring honest coverage and insight to an eager audience. Because of AG’s footprint within the tech startup space and in the business category, we needed a way to expand our publication, and in 2011, we changed our masthead to AGBeat, launching a brand around Agent/Genius."

http://agbeat.com/about/

Oh, so the link-bait headline comes from a group of real estate agents who want to spread alarm at their business actually being subjected to the rule of law. What a surprise.

HeyLaughingBoy2• 13 years ago

...possibly when I am in my yard in view of airplanes and helicopters

That's a bit of a stretch in terms of things to be concerned about, don't you think?

I frequently have low flying airplanes (someone around here owns a really pretty Piper Cub), ultralights, helicopters and hot-air balloons (there's a local business offering flights) passing close enough over my house that I can hear the occupants talking.

It's par for the course of living out in the country: they're in relatively empty airspace away from the city. Except for the fact that the helos are noisy if they come too close at night, there is nothing bothersome about any of them.

I'm much more concerned that if I decided to take up aerial photography from an R/C plane or balloon as a hobby, I'd now be breaking a law.

nostromo• 13 years ago

Respectfully, I don't see how it's link bait, it's a very straight-forward and factual headline.

The ad hominem argument also isn't persuasive; judge the legislation based on your ethical compass, not on dislike for a specific profession.

ghayes• 13 years ago

What the article is missing, clearly, is the phrase "in New Hampshire" or "in one US state."

JoshTriplett2• 13 years ago

Thanks for the added detail. With the specific prohibitions on photographs of residences that include people, this does seem like it might have grown out of privacy issues rather than from the secrecy and paranoia that produces doctored or inaccurate images of government buildings in online maps. I'd argue that the prohibition should specifically cover only people inside the residential structure, and have some concept of scale (so that a photo at a scale that has people as unidentifiable single pixels doesn't count), but the concept doesn't seem excessively unreasonable in the same spirit as "don't take pictures through people's windows".

scoot• 13 years ago

> With the specific prohibitions on photographs of residences that include people

How do you arrive at that conclusion? The language of the bill specifically excludes from prohibition images not containing "forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects" (emphasis mine) - yet the writer of the article came to the same conclusion you have: ..."possibly implying that if no human is in any photo or video taken, it is acceptable."

What am I missing?

HeyLaughingBoy2• 13 years ago

Well there goes another business if this passes.

I live on a small farm in (obviously) a rural area. There are people whose business model consists of coming to the front door to show you a small aerial photo of your house and asking if you want to buy the framed 18"x30" version.

Not my cup of tea, but has it even begun to cross the minds of legislators in the mostly rural state of New Hampshire that there are many legitimate businesses that need to do aerial photography?

Just when you thought you'd finally seen the bottom of the stupidity cup, you find there's still more to go!

quink• 13 years ago

My high school, when I went there a decade ago, had an giant aerial photograph right at the reception.

Crazy to think that it would be banned, but the map right next to that - which has an outline of every building and labels - wouldn't be. Which in turn makes me wonder whether this will give reason to ban maps of school campuses too. After all, school shootings happen so the solution could be to ban maps of schools :|

gojomo• 13 years ago

Sociologist Max Weber in 1919 advanced the idea that the state is an entity which claims for itself a monopoly on the legitimatized use of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

A 21st-century Weber might instead identify the state as the entity claiming a monopoly on surveillance.

oleganza18• 13 years ago

The problem is not in surveillance. The problem is: "we will kill you if you decline to go to jail for doing aerial photography". That's what the law says. The surveillance is secondary.

mimiflynn• 13 years ago

Kill? I read that it would be a Class A Misdemeanor.

colanderman6• 13 years ago

"we will kill you if you decline to go to jail for doing aerial photography"

Where? What law? They're giving out the death penalty for misdemeanors now?

fredBuddemeyer• 13 years ago

the best part will be enforcement; each state can create an air force to protect us from such potential threats.

neurotech1• 13 years ago

Technically they do. It's the Air National Guard, some who fly F-16s or even F-22 fighters. Of course, the Rules of Engagement are pretty restrictive, but they are available to protect a state from aerial threats.

I doubt they'll use F-22s to take out little drones taking photos of someones backyard.

run4yourlives2• 13 years ago

This is one of those cases were google could wield it's near monopoly in mapping services for good.

They should just simply decide to follow this law preemptively and eliminate all aerial imagery of New Hampshire tomorrow. Let the uproar from the public sort the law makers out.

brk• 13 years ago

Does Google actually own the satellites taking the images, or are they licensing them (as was my understanding) from Federally-funded satellites?

run4yourlives2• 13 years ago

I think most of the images are actually private aerial photographs.

tamersalama• 13 years ago

The bill should be correctly labelled as giving exclusive rights to government for aerial photography.

This is wrong.

ipetepete• 13 years ago

This is ridiculous. People need to be educated on what they don't understand so the will stop being afraid and try to pass these unfounded, near-sited, knee-jerk legislations.

If this goes more widespread, the government will be severely crippling my hobby, and some of my supplemental income.

noonespecial• 13 years ago

>some of my supplemental income.

What you are doing now is likely already quite illegal.

http://fstoppers.com/using-drones-faa-approval-photos-or-vid...

Anechoic• 13 years ago

Is Kurk actively trying to stop all real estate and building development activity in his state?

One of the first things that often happens when someone is planing a public or private development is that developer/architect/engineer commissions an aerial photo of the project area. It allows for more up-to-date photography of that specific (and surrounding) area than may be available from USGS or the state's GIS office and can help to identify and address any number of environmental concerns that come up in the permitting process.

Yeah, government users are unaffected, but I have a box and multiple DVD's full of aerial photography commissioned by private clients. Development would have been constrained on those projects without those photos.

wallawe• 13 years ago

Oh, but you can purchase an expensive license... from the government

redthrowaway• 13 years ago

A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects. In this paragraph, “dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more individuals.

This would seem to criminalize GoPros on RC airplanes, strapping a camera to a balloon and recording its journey to the edge of space, and a bevy of other harmless applications. At best, this bill is ill thought-out.

base698• 13 years ago

Or skydiving with a camera if you look down. Oh dear don't look down it's a misdemeanor!

mrb• 13 years ago

This law would make so many things illegal: news helicopters filming road traffic, taking pictures from your plane seat's window, from a valentine's day hot-air balloon ride, filming your skydive, etc.

maxk42• 13 years ago

Let's do it the other way around.

leot• 13 years ago

One potential solution: require all drones (gov't included, unless there's a warrant) to publicly identify their location and operator if operated higher than, say, 20 feet.

kdazzle• 13 years ago

live free or die

chris_mahan• 13 years ago

I would prefer the opposite.

stcredzero• 13 years ago

New Hampshire: Live Free or Spy

Drone use should actually be a bigger citizen's rights issue than guns.

matterhorn• 13 years ago

This is ridiculously broad. It serves as a great example of H.L. Mencken's famous quote, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

jacobmarble• 13 years ago

I propose a law to ban unlicensed aerial photography by the government. Government entities shall announce, in public record, any flight intended to collect aerial photographs, before such flight is undertaken. The reason for the flight shall be declared in simple English, and all photographs shall become part of the public record.

I trust (and know) the people in my neighborhood more than I trust the Ministry of Truth.

logn• 13 years ago

This is an interesting issue. Normally I'm all for privacy but I think we need some way to allow for innovation yet still ensure privacy. Actually I think banning the government and allowing others is a starting point. I think maybe a petition or license-based system would be good. I'd hate for a software startup to be disallowed from taking pictures for some new innovative idea. I think Google Maps is really just the start of a whole wave of technology we'll see.

jrockway2• 13 years ago

Prior restraint. Also, good luck enforcing New Hampshire law in space.

eksith• 13 years ago

If they intend to ban arial photography from "any device that is not supported by the ground", they might as well ban all general aviation in New Hampshire. Or will there be fines and confiscations if you take a camera on your next flight?

This is yet another unenforcable law.

Why can't they make more sensible ones in NH like this nugget of gold? http://www.dumblaws.com/law/630

vacri• 13 years ago

Hey, it's only illegal at night!

I wonder what the thinking was behind that law.

Edit: On second viewing, that's a highly suspect site. For example, for the UK it has 'Divorces are Outlawed'. For a start, they're actually not - that's the whole thing about the creation of the CofE, but more to the point, the 'Source' for the law is listed in its totality as "BBC 17 Nov. 1999", as if that would help us verify it.

urza• 13 years ago

This is wrong on so many levels.

1. Prohibition does not work. It has been tested many times over many decades. If people of New Hampshire are afraid of aerial photography how about this: When anyone (incl. government) wants to take pictures from drones over some area in N.H., they need to tell in advance and concerned property owners can permit or prohibit the action.

2. Sponsoring bills is a very strange practice to me (I am from Europe). I dont understand how this is democracy.

3. Government should be more restricted in what it can to than its citizens. Not the other way around.

The world needs new law-making system(s). More democratic and rational.

Aerial photography ban proposed for all but government

Related Stories