No, the US regulates US-based companies, just like in any other field. This includes making the ability to conduct large scale surveillance of the earth's surface subject to license.
> No, the US regulates US-based companies, just like in any other field. This includes making the ability to conduct large scale surveillance of the earth's surface subject to license.
I wonder how that comports with this limitation on the U.S.: ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …’ Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me that if they launched the camera, they have a right to publish the photos.
Why don't you try your theory about it being impossible to prohibit photos/videos by wandering into a military facility with a camera and explaining to the angry men with guns that they can't legally interfere with you?
I'll wait for you to report back on how that goes.
I don't think many people would argue collection of multispectral and radar images of the earth from space for commercial distribution was what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about freedom of speech. Legal restrictions on photography, particularly commercial photography, came before satellites.
Weird how HN spends most of its time complaining about digital panopticons, CCTV etc and then is up in arms about the basic principle of regulating companies increasingly moving towards selling the ability to discreetly take images or video of any area at any time. (I can see the logic in excepting low res SpaceX launch videos from that and doubt they'd have had any problems at all if they'd applied for a license in time, but you draft regulations for the rules not the exceptions, especially when there's only a handful of companies to license)
It's probably not very effective at all at stopping people doing shady stuff.
The people doing shady stuff are either the US government (who will give themselves permission) or other country's governments (who won't even ask permission). So what exactly does it prevent?
