US allows commercial use of sharper satellite snaps

US-based satellite-images-for-sale outfit DigitalGlobe has had a win: its national government will allow it to sell higher-resolution images. As we noted in March, the US Senate has been considering whether local satellite operators should be allowed to sell more detailed images. The reason for the deliberations was that while …

[corestore]

Possibly the ultimate 'Canute Syndrome'; who in hell do the USA think they're kidding, thinking they can regulate the sale of images that weren't even taken on US soil?!

Given the capabilities of other countries in this field, such a law would never survive strict scrutiny under the first amendment; it serves little to no useful purpose.

[Trevor_Pott]

The ability to obtain 10cm imagery is not, in and of itself, "a new era of surveillance." That said, it's general availability in an easy-to-use form (read: Google Earth) absolutely is a "new era of surveillance."

Depending on how frequently these images are updated we're talking about taking surveillance capabilities once restricted to governments and "those in the know and who have the means" and given them to everyone. One extra tool for society's sociopaths and stalkers.

Oh, technology is neutral, and there are good arguments to be made for this. For example, I think it will make planning certain kinds of outdoor events much easier. The question we have to ask ourselves is "just because a technology can be commoditised, should it?"

It's 2014 and we still haven't solved the social issues of copyright infringement that the commoditisation of simple recording technology brought to the 80s, let alone digital distribution of the 90s! Yet here we are plunging headfirst into a society where we track everything, everyone, all the time and are even now making available the ability to judge the relative size of all objects on earth to within a penis-length from space.

I just don't think we're ready to handle this responsibly. Our laws, our mediation methodologies, our ability to solve differences...they haven't grown as fast as our technology. We're a dissatisfied and tribal bunch of miserable apes each clawing and scheming our way to an advantage over other apes...but now with the technology to do some Really Scary Stuff.

This one advancement won't make a world-ending difference...but where do we say "halt, we need time for our hearts to catch up to our heads"? That's the question with which I struggle...

[Don Jefe]

There can never be equilibrium between technological advancement and law. Technology itself, not the use of it, is an ever growing, ever evolving thing. Discoveries build on discoveries built on discoveries. It is a positive concept that adds to society.

Laws, regulations and such, are negative concepts that subtract from society. Laws are restrictive by nature and cannot add anything. They define limits and manufactured boundaries and each new law whittles away a little something more. Eventually you reach a point where nothing else can be taken away and things that are illegal today become legal, things that were legal become illegal. Things have always worked like that, and will continue to work like that until Man figures out how to govern from bottom up.

I'm not advocating anarchy, just pointing out the fact that it's going to be a hell of a long wait for new technology if we've got to put the brakes on for decades at a time while governments figure out how best to restrict a given technology. The only way forward is to throw new things out there and haul ass, hoping to get far enough ahead that you don't lose everything when government starts restricting the expansion and evolution of a technology.

I don't know about you, but I've got less than zero faith in any governments ability to restrict something in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves. They'll never be 'ready' so now is as good a time as any to press forward. Let the government play catch up, we're fucked if they get out in front.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy indeed

And corporate-run lawlessness too.

Governements regulate lead paint and leaded fuel and asbestos and banks' ponzi schemes and land mine use (well some do, not the US obviously).

> zero faith in any governments ability to restrict something in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves

This *faith* is just that, and is 100% ideology-based. Start looking for *reasoning* now.

[Steven Roper]

Very well put, Trevor, and I couldn't agree more. For a long time now, I myself operate on the principle that if I am outside my house, I am on at least one camera somewhere. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's not so much the cameras as the person-recognition software (such as face-, voice- or gait- recognition) and the metadata it creates that is a far more serious threat.

However, I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing that such technology is accessible to all rather than a privileged few who will inevitably abuse it. I'd feel a lot happier if every CCTV camera was a webcam instead of just a police camera, for example.

I know this sounds at odds with my previous statement, but bear with me here. If the technology is accessible to all, it levels the playing field. Corrupt police would not be able to "mysteriously lose" CCTV footage that shows them in compromising situations. Stalkers and sociopaths would themselves become equally subject to being tracked and monitored. The long-term recording of all this information means that if anyone takes me to court for something, or tries to otherwise harm or ruin my life, I could also backtrack them and discover their motives in response. Public access to this level of surveillance would enforce transparency and accountability for everyone, high and low alike.

This is why such openness and accessibility would be absolute anathema to those in power. The power and allure of surveillance is its ability to watch without being watched in turn. I suspect that a lot of privacy legislation and privacy issues are being publicised and driven by these people precisely to prevent the equalisation of power that public access to surveillance technology represents. The elites want themselves and their police cronies to be able to monitor everyone but not to be monitored themselves.

So if we are to have mass surveillance and it is unavoidable, I'd far rather it was turned equally on everybody and accessible to anybody, instead of just a few privileged powermongers who will inevitably use it to turn our world into a police-state hellhole.

[Trevor_Pott]

So what you're saying is that you want to give every crazy fuckwad who hates whites/men/fat people/bearded individuals/etc (subtract as necessary) the means by which to more efficiently single me out, find where I am in real time and harm me? You want my boss to be able to see when I told a little white lie about why I'm late, and instead of dropping off a package, I went for a nooner with the missus?

How about the details of my sex life? Should they be available to anyone who wants to attempt to embarrass me? Or my wife? Or my parents, sister, what-have-you? People in power generally don't need to abuse that power because they're already in power. Their indiscretions (at least in wealthy societies) are relatively minor. They don't generally have a reason to want to spy on the average citizen.

But the world is full of truly crazy people who absolutely do get it in their heads to harm others. White power types hunting for [insert racial epithet] here. Minorities looking for revenge. Bored bosses looking for staff to fire or jealous lovers looking for an excuse to get the partner abuse on.

If I could watch every corner in the city, what prevents me for picking a secluded neighborhood, watching every night and logging who goes by? What if I see the same female every Thursday at the same time? Couldn't I plane a rape? Or a murder?

What if I see that kid who made fun of me in school going by that one dark alley every single night as he walks home from school? Or I find that my boss always drives too fast on the rather dangerous road where spike strips could easily be places and then removed?

I don't think you understand how horrible people are. People in power don't need to resort to most of the truly sadistic and horrible stuff because they have so much power that they can do whatever they want. People without power - and that's most of us - need to do our dirty deeds either in secret, or only in our own heads.

Give these people the power to observe everything, everywhere and "in their own heads" will become "in secret" more and more often. Especially as we start to find out what is in people's heads and regulate against it! (Thanks, UK. You guys are pro.)

What % of society needs to abuse these technologies before it's no longer "okay?" What excuses will we use? Cameras are a "level playing field" because everyone watches them? How many of use watch them to catch bad guys for free? How many of us watch the spaces between the cameras? How many of us use the cameras just to catch our hated neighbor putting out one extra bag of trash?

Are all laws worth enforcing, and worth enforcing equally? If so, we're all criminals, because modern laws are designed such that you break several of them during any given day, even if you are going out of your way to be law abiding. Who runs society when we're all in jail? Who pays the fines for all minor infractions when none of us can get jobs because we all have unpaid fines?

How does our society function when every minor slight - real or imagined - can be reciprocated to with completely disproportionate surveillance-enabled retribution?

You are advocating a society in which the most devious, the most douchy and the most morally able to execute dramatic preemptive strikes wins...because everyone else absolutely will lose.

If Google can see everything I do they can advertise at me more effectively. That's not something I'm comfortable with, but it's narrow and targeted. If the NSA can see everything I do, they can make my life hell every time I try to cross the US border to go to a conference. I'm even less okay with this, but they have a lot of very big men with even larger guns.

If my neighbor or my boss can see everything I do they can ruin my life in a similarly completely legal manner. I may or may not have the time and resources to fight that war and win.

If the crazy racist down the street can see everything I do, then he might Treyvon Martin my ass...and apparently, get away with it. This is a thing that you can do now.

I don't know man, your idea of a "level" society terrifies the shit out of me. It really does.

[Steven Roper]

I get where you're coming from, Trevor, and believe me I do know how horrible people are. So horrible that I've even refused to have children because I despise the human race that much.

Those who are in power are exactly the ones who shouldn't be (I think Douglas Adams put that most succinctly) since they got there by being greedy, unscrupulous, manipulative, sociopathic, all the traits that make human beings so horrible. So by restricting the tools of power, such as surveillance, to those people we are effectively handing our world over to vicious sociopaths anyway.

Achieving a balanced society has always been humanity's greatest bugaboo ever since we figured out how to throw rocks at each other. History has shown time and again, right up to the present day, that technology that enables one man to gain power over another always results in degeneration to an oppressive, brutal society ruled by Machiavellian overlords. Our world is going that way right now. So how do we avoid where this is all inevitably going?

While I see your point about psychos, bitter exes and moral crusaders going on rampages against you or whoever, and believe me as an MRA I've encountered first-hand the sheer malice and hatred of the more radical feminists in our world as well, I can't see any other way of achieving the social balance of power our world really needs.

I'd rather there was no surveillance technology at all, and we could all go about our lives knowing that our every move is not being tracked and monitored. But unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle. We can't put it back in. All we can hope to do is to implement some means of holding those who hold the reins to account. I don't trust our rulers; few of us do. We all know that their objective is to enslave and dominate and control and get as much as they can while giving as little as possible.

So like you, yes, such an open "level" world scares the hell out of me too. But a world in which only those who have already seized power by any means retain sole control of the means to hold onto it, scares me even more.

[Trevor_Pott]

"So like you, yes, such an open "level" world scares the hell out of me too. But a world in which only those who have already seized power by any means retain sole control of the means to hold onto it, scares me even more."

Why? More to the point: what exactly do you think we can do about it? And how will surveilling everything and everyone all the time help level that playing feild?

The power of those is charge is completely asymmetric to "the muck". The American dream of picking up their precious guns and overthrowing the government is batshit bananas insane. Even in nations that are about as well armed as the LAPD, the hoi polloi either needed the military to side with the people, or other nations to help out. Who is going to help the "little people" rise up against a western government, hmm? Who is even going to force a western government to hold accountable, transparent elections?

The powers that be behave exactly how they want to behave, and the powers aren't the people elected. The PTB are the self-perpetuating bureaucracy that actually keeps the nations ticking along, and good fucking luck displacing them.

No, all publicly available mass surveillance is going to do is give the plebians one more tool to use in fighting amongst themselves. Mass surveillance is the replacement for television. It keeps the masses servile and obedient because they can direct their rage at something other than those in charge: eachother. The added bonus for the PTB is that the milled masses will spend their time tattling on one another, helping the government root out dissidents and NIMBYs that need to be watched for a lower cost.

I absolutely do not see how any of this puts norms on a level playing feild with those in charge. Please, do explain.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree, Trevor. While I couldn't predict the outcome any more than anyone else, I suspect the evolution of society would be for the better. For instance those of you who worry about what people think would become like those of us who don't give a fuck what people think. That in itself is a major step in psychological evolution. Sociopaths already don't give a shit; whereas I suggest the rest of humanity would, rather, gain in self-confidence/self-esteem to such an extent that as a mass movement it would usher in the new age of enlightenment the optimists have been predicting for close to a century now.

No regrets, as they say. Worrying about what the boss thinks is a bigger problem than being on a web-cam in public, though not necessarily more so than being unable to realize it. Not caring what people think is liberating, in a way you can't imagine until you do it.

[Trevor_Pott]

Fritz, I don't have a boss. I'm so fat that I long ago ceased giving a fuck what others think and my entire family are shinks of one flavour or another. I know what you're trying to say...

...and you're wrong. What's "liberating" for one human is horrifying for the species. Your utopia won't manifest. Mark my words. We aren't ready for this concept. We will attack eachother with these new tools. It's our nature.

But the tools are now beyond anything that we can cope with...

[Anonymous Coward]

> But the tools are now beyond anything that we can cope with...

I'm slightly more optimistic. I'm also more worried what governments do with this kind of technology rather than what psychopaths can. Governments can throw you in jail for doing what they don't want to to do and they have the money and resources to make your life a f"cking misery.

Let's face it: psychopaths and stalkers do what they do regardless of the assistance of Google Streetview and similar technologies. I, like the governments' attempts to make us cower in fear at the possibility of being bombed by the latest fictitious terrorist threat, refuse to let those small number of fuckwits affect the progress of our race and our technology.

Like Don above, I think the best we can hope for is to let technology develop and deal with the consequences as they come. There are far more positives than the possible negatives so far and I would be much more concerned about how society is affected in general i.e. our social institutions, education, and communication.

[Irongut]

Oh noes I can tell Trevor was out of the house on a random date six months ago, how will he cope! Or do you actually think Google Earth is real time?

"the ability to judge the relative size of all objects on earth to within a penis-length from space"

So you're real problem is that we'll all be able to use Google Earth to tell you've got a small cock?

Seriously this is a non-issue. Companies outside the US have been selling images of this resolution for years and the sky has failed to fall.

[Martin Budden]

the ability to judge the relative size of all objects on earth to within a penis-length

YMMV ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

People are starting to react to surveillance.

Love the video of a drone being taken down by the crowd.

http://www.businessinsider.com/raging-hockey-fans-destroy-lapd-drone-2014-6

I understand that it is difficult to control other countries satellites and as a previous poster mentioned it is silly to have a law preventing U.S. companies from doing it if foreign companies can.

I am just saying that people are starting to react to surveillance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: People are starting to react to surveillance.

As the Quad shown looks like a DJI Phantom it's more likely a private enthusiasts item rather than a "Drone" with implications of official use. Its also damn low which again must point to a local noob rather than held up by the long arm of the law.

Also for the sake of intelligent thought avoid calling basic quads with cameras on drones or we'll get back to the mob attacking paediatrician's houses due to the plaque on the wall.

[corestore]

Re: People are starting to react to surveillance.

I'm a pro. A pro drone with a pro camera rig can easily cost north of $80,000:

- $35k for my Red Dragon camera

- $30k for a Master Prime lens

- $25k for a drone capable of lifting them

You destroy my drone, you better have a very good lawyer and very deep pockets because I'm going to pwn your sorry ass, when you get out of jail. Stupid stupid stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: People are starting to react to surveillance.

> You destroy my drone, you better have a very good lawyer and very deep pockets because I'm going to pwn your sorry ass, when you get out of jail. Stupid stupid stupid.

If you stand in front of a drunken crowd, get out your dick and start waving it at people, sooner or later someone is going to kick you in the nuts.

I get your point, but looking at the video, what happened was predictable and inevitable.

[Mark 85]

Surveillance or something else

Given the nature of a satellite, just because it has fantastic resolution doesn't really mean much. The question is how many satellites are doing this, and what's the frequency of it over a given location. Once upon a time, the satellite surveillance was useful only for permanent and semi-permanent installations such as military bases, nuke plants, industrial capability, etc. from a military perspective for targeting info. That was the reason for the restrictions. Not to find Joe Blow's license plate outside the bank he's holding up or to catch Miss Beasly nude sun-bathing in her backyard.

Is the umbrella of satellite coverage wide enough to check everyone, every hour? Every day? Can that much information be processed in a timely fashion? Or is this more for civil engineering... maybe, finding potholes on the roads? Yeah, that's absurd. But it's not the gathering of this information/photos that's the problem, but how often and also what is it being used for?

Having governmental or commercial concerns having access is a real problem as they don't have the oversight or ethics to say "wait a minute... why is looking at this and filing it away important?" If the NSA can massively suck data and Google can do the equivalent and both don't have oversight or ethics than the Big Brother Culture is here and now.

Just because the technology is available doesn't always mean it's useful nor does it mean that it's bad. I, for one, have no idea where this technology (satellite) will lead in the scheme of things so I don't know if it's comforting or frightening. Technology is power and it's the power part that's scary indeed.

[Trevor_Pott]

Re: Surveillance or something else

Satellites are only one part of the equation. There's all the digital surveillance that exists, from someone sniffing packets at the cafe, to your employer, to your ISP, to the NSA. There's the increased use (legally and illegally) of multirotor copters and even proper drones. There's the fact that a cell phone with a multi-day battery pack can be hidden just about anywhere and contain enough sensors to do a truly terrifying amount of spying...

...I don't want to live in a society were privacy is dead. Not in law and not in practice. I don't think we're socially capable of dealing with that just yet.

[Mark 85]

Re: Surveillance or something else

Exactly. If we look at the whole picture of society, it should scare one shitless. From the guy you always see on the street corner every day to familiar face you pass once a week in the hallway. All them have the possibility of doing harm. Maybe it's just reporting your actions to HR or to a mutual friend. Or maybe there's something bigger... who knows? Once we start tossing technology into the mix things get scarier. That guy on the street corner can now have Google Glass or even just a simple smartphone and be recording people. Who knows what's afoot with that.

The big problem is what gets done with all this surveillance and data and who has access to it. For example, there are laws to prevent stalking, but given the current state of technology, stalking is a gray area unless there's intent. Prove intent? Do we want to give stalkers the information? Or do want to give the stalkee and the authorities the information? The information is out there... even the stalker can be stalked.

Privacy may not be dead yet but it is gasping for breath. I agree with you on our capability of dealing with no privacy. I'm not capable and I know of no one who is. The BS about "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is exactly that. Everyone wants some power.. from the highest member of any regime to the lowliest workerbee. Technology can even that out and it is and should be terrifying. We being given a false sense of security by all this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the fishbowl

There was an Asimov short story about a scientific discovery that could view the past. A practical machine required enormous resources to run. It was announced that it was therefore only available to a few selected historians doing research into the distant past**.

Then a disrupting technology produced a small cheap version of the machine. That allowed anyone to see everywhere in the past - including inside rooms and in the dark. The "past" was a small as a few seconds - or as large as a lifetime. The final line was "Welcome to the fishbowl". It seemed very fanciful at the time.

**No ancient historians were ever given access. It was found that noise limited the use to only a few years' history.

[Zog_but_not_the_first]

Oh no (again)!

Everyone will know how often I mow the lawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh no (again)!

Isn't there a town in Germany with a local law about how often you should mow the lawn? And you can't wash your car or hang out washing on a Sunday? They'll love these images.

[Jon B]

Re: Oh no (again)!

Loads of suburbs in the US have these bylaws

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind mooning at google camera cars...

... get ready to moon at the satellite as it passes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sod that. Improve the GPS resolution instead!

I was trying to survey my house using my iPad's GPS yesterday.

But the resolution was >= 5m and the reading also then only changed once every 5m or so.

So pretty useless.

I ended up having to hack the Ordance Survey vector data for the area instead which I presume is accurate down to no more than 10cm.

[Anonymous Coward]

.5m resolution?

What does this mean? Is it a precise unit, like 1m square on the ground = 4 pixels on screen?

[Trevor_Pott]

Re: .5m resolution?

Yes, that's about the sum of it.