|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Isn't she supposed to be an environmental |
| Date: |
07/21/2003 06:45:00 PM |
| From: |
Ryan Morgan, Aerials Express |
|
|
>By the way, is there anyone on this List who is in the remote sensing
>business? What would it do to your business if you had to get permission
>from everyone whose property you overfly to take aerial photos?
I doubt if it would effect us, since we fly at much higher altitudes and
hence, get much lower resolutions. Any legislation, no matter how
ludicrous, would undoubtedly limit the altitude at which photos can be
taken, and I doubt they would go much higher than a few thousand feet. We
fly at 17,000 feet and end up with a three feet per pixel resolution. For
those not familiar with aerial photography, that means you can see a car,
but you would not be able to make out it's windshield, you can see a house,
but not a BBQ, or maybe a patio umbrella. If you would like to see exactly
what I mean, you can go to our website below and view any of our 70 cities
across the US.
We also have pictures of the California coastline, but no one has ever
complained. I think it comes down to a question of ethics, was it ethical
to take super hi res pictures of the California coastline for environmental
purposes? Definitely. Was it ethical to post these to the Internet for
other GIS professionals to use? Definitely. Was it ethical to keep them
posted even though someone complained about their privacy? Maybe not, but
it wasn't illegal either. Was it ethical sue the aerial photographer for
$50 million? Ridiculous.
Another example we have run into involves swimming pools. Many
municipalities have started taxing swimming pools, which can easily be
spotted from the air. We do some business with such municipalities who have
learned they can use our product to help them level their tax bias. As it
turns out, not everyone report their pools, which creates an unfair
situation: the honest folks who report their pools are taxed, and the
dishonest folks who don't report them are not. Many times the folks who
tried to hide the fact they had a 21,000 gallon monster in their backyard,
cry fowl and claim invasion of privacy. But the standard rebuttal is, "you
lied and didn't report your pool." Perhaps if they had built indoor pools,
they could have gotten away with it. Our cameras can't look through
ceilings or other areas where one can expect a reasonable amount of privacy.
(Nor can they see you sunbathing in case you were wondering.)
Is anyone even after Barbara Streisand?
:)
Ryan Morgan
Aerials Express
www.AerialsExpress.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri Rotow [mailto:dar@manifold.net]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 12:01 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,
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
