|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Isn't she supposed to be an environmentalist |
| Date: |
07/21/2003 03:00:00 PM |
| From: |
Ross, Gregory K. |
|
|
I agree. One does not have a "right to privacy", but the law does
allow for some "security." It would NOT be legal for me to video tape you
punching in the security code to your house alarm system and then posting it
on the internet, even if I was flying at 500 feet. This may constitute
"depraved indifference" or such. Ask a lawyer for the exact terminology.
Streisand may argue that such aerial photography of her estate
provides a "potential" criminal trespass situation by making known
entrances, alarm locations, and such.... (I don't think she can prove this).
The "right to privacy" is really more an interpretation of existing law
where you cannot infringe upon my private property unless you meet certain
criteria: door-to-door salesman (some places require a license), neighborly
visit, religious duties, or a warrant, etc.....
Or she may simply argue that remote sensing (viewing things not
normally visible to the human eye from the lowest legal altitude) is the
same as being a "peeping tom."
So again the question is: "Does the "greater public benefit" override the
"individual privacy right" in such a case?" Sure, it does. Just don't take
pictures of MY back yard.........
Gregory Ross
Biological Scientist
University of Florida / IFAS
Florida Medical Entomology Lab
200 9th Street SE
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-778-7200 ext. 163
http://mosquito.ifas.ufl.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri Rotow [mailto:dar@manifold.net]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 3:01 PM
To: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: RE: GISList: Isn't she supposed to be an environmental
>
> ...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
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
