|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Isn't she supposed to be an environmental |
| Date: |
07/21/2003 02:05:01 PM |
| From: |
Dimitri Rotow |
|
|
>
> ...apart from professional concern, the issue here seems to be
> really about a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and open
> publication of the collected data:
Well, this is exactly the sort of new "right," unfounded in any law that the
California courts love to invent. It's part of their master plan to take
over the legislative function alloted to the Cal state legislature. :-)
In point of fact, you really don't have any "reasonable expectation of
privacy" for things that are exposed to view in public spaces. Airspace is
one such public space in the US. If the crazy California courts invent such
a new "right" then you can kiss goodbye the use of aerial photos for GIS.
Note that except for some excluded zones set up for national security
purposes, airspace in the US is federalized (that is, it is under federal,
not state or local control) and that anyone can fly pretty much anywhere
they want so long as (depending on the particular airspace involved) they
stay at least 1000 feet above ground level or, in many parts of the US
(uncontrolled airspace) they can fly as low as they like as long as they
stay at least 200 feet from any person, building or vehicle. The
restrictions for helicopters are even lower.
I've been a private pilot for over 30 years. While it is not to everyone's
taste, I have on many occasions flown the length of the West and East coasts
at low altitudes (ie, 100 or 200 feet) for hundreds of miles, diverting as
necessary to avoid people, houses, security zones, other aircraft, etc.
[This can be done in reasonable safety, but since this is not an aviation
list I will spare people the technical details of how it is safely done.]
I realize that private aircraft are not so widely used outside of the US,
but in the US one can acquire a cheap used aircraft for under $20,000 so it
is a hobby within the reach of most employed Americans. There are a *lot*
of people flying privately on any given day and many of them take pictures
from the air. There is nothing that prevents me or anyone else from
snapping a photo of Streisand's house as long as I stay at least 200 feet
away, if it is in uncontrolled airspace, which that part of Malibu probably
is.
> * Does a Ms. Streisand have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"
> against aerial photography? (Was something done in the past that
> clearly demonstrates that expectation, say, through site-planning?)
>
You mistakenly are assuming a right that does not exist, or that some local
jurisdiction (through site-planning) could trump the larger, Federal right
of free passage through airspace.
There *are* means of closing off airspace, but these are done for air safety
reasons and national security measures, not for privacy reasons. For
example, there is a temporary no-fly zone over the Super Bowl (the American
professional football championship, for those of us reading this from
abroad...) every year that once was mainly aimed at preventing a host of
private pilots from swarming the scene and risking aerial collisions and now
is mainly intended to guard somewhat against terrorist attack.
It is also possible to get restraining orders against operation of aircraft
done in a harrassing way. For example, Streisand could no doubt get a
restraining order against someone who assembled a fleet of four helicopters
and hovered them over her property at 200 feet for hours every day even
though this would be technically legal from the Federal perspective. But
such an injunction would be a bar against active interference (as a result
of the noise and wind, etc.) against her actual usage of her property and
would not stem from some claim of privacy.
One final type of airspace closure are restricted areas over environmentally
sensitive regions such as the elephant seal calving grounds at Ano Nuevo
state park. However much Streisand may have the appearance and physique of
an elephant seal, I don't think she would get far declaring her residence to
be a special environmental enclave. :-)
> * Do the aerial photographs disclose private details (of property
> or person) that are otherwise not available to the general public?
>
Not an issue, because if it is viewable from a public space it is, by
definition, not private. There are many precedents for such viewings,
ranging from the helicopters that photograph celebrity weddings to the use
of special long range lenses by some celebrity photographers to catch
glimpses of "private" settings. In general, if celebrities don't want to be
photographed from the air (say, if they have a taste for naked sunbathing)
they need to either erect visual barriers (such as tents, canopies, porches,
etc.) or to carry out their activities anonymously at undisclosed locations
where they are unlikely to be phot
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
