Bill Gates, Airbus, Softbank back EarthNow plan to cover Earth with real-time video surveillance satellites

[Austinham]

law enforcement

3 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Taking this plan at face value and without more information, there are obvious issues and I've mentioned some of them in the OP.

 

But here's another very specific one: There are people who abduct children and even teenagers. Access to real-time video surveillance of when children leave their home or school, their habits of where they go, would make it easy for a kidnapper to target and abduct a child with very low-risk of being caught.

I second this if its made available to the public. But if used properly it can be a grate help to law enforcement. Kinda of like how the eye in the sky stopped a whole drug ring with one shooting. I belie that was in juarez mexico.

[Tristerin]

3 minutes ago, MS-DOS Guy said:

What do you mean by "modifying the lens"? 

Anything meant to zoom beyond the function of the intended device.  So if you buy a Camera, that has already able to zoom functions - it can be used to zoom in and take pictures, video, whatever of private property from public lines (But Space AINT public property).  But if you modify that device, by adding a secondary or new zooming device it can be considered trespassing.  There are guys that do this for profit (Look up San Joaquin Valley Transparency for example, hes nearly a millionaire from cop baiting).

 

I work with local law enforcement and this has been a legit item of discussion for some time.

[Austinham]

2 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Anything meant to zoom beyond the function of the intended device.  So if you buy a Camera, that has already able to zoom functions - it can be used to zoom in and take pictures, video, whatever of private property from public lines (But Space AINT public property).  But if you modify that device, by adding a secondary or new zooming device it can be considered trespassing.  There are guys that do this for profit (Look up San Joaquin Valley Transparency for example, hes nearly a millionaire from cop baiting).

 

I work with local law enforcement and this has been a legit item of discussion for some time.

Can you post a link the law?

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Anything meant to zoom beyond the function of the intended device.  So if you buy a Camera, that has already able to zoom functions - it can be used to zoom in and take pictures, video, whatever of private property from public lines (But Space AINT public property).  But if you modify that device, by adding a secondary or new zooming device it can be considered trespassing.  There are guys that do this for profit (Look up San Joaquin Valley Transparency for example, hes nearly a millionaire from cop baiting).

That sounds silly, what if the device is "intended" to have a 100x super zoom?

[TetraSky]

Big Brother wasn't satisfied with CCTV footage, so they wanted Earth-wide footage instead.

[Ashleyyyy]

37 minutes ago, jaslion said:

This just sounds horrible. For all the good it can do it will do so far more worse things. Once anyone with bad intentions gets access to this be it a single person, a group, a government or whatnot things can easily spiral out of hand.

it doesn't say anywhere that the camera's are accurate enough to identify people. 

[Tristerin]

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That sounds silly, what if the device is "intended" to have a 100x super zoom?

Exactly, and that is where people, and law enforcement are getting tangled up.  There are a lot of these photographers up and out testing these laws and the issue becomes one of Government overreach - when does the Cop get the ability to say you Modified this?  Pre illegal search and seizure?

15 minutes ago, Austinham said:

Can you post a link the law?

State by State, heres Cali's who has been setting precedence, some things to read:

https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights

I believe its California Penal Code 148.G specifically. 

 

EDIT - my favorite tester to watch is San Juaquin Valley Transparency on YouTube.  When working with law enforcement we use him as the shining example of being tested vs knowing your shit in law enforcement.

[Bananasplit_00]

The fact that this is even concidered is appalling.

 

This might be one of the worst ideas I have ever read about.

[yian88]

Anyone complaining about their backyard  privacy ive got old news, they already spy on your dirty ass with existing satellites and drones

Psycho Pass is the only future.

[Velcade]

Great...

 

[cj09beira]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

I strongly doubt this would have a high enough resolution and precision for anything of the sort. The best they advertise is "catching illegal fishing ships in the act" - fishing ships are quite a bit larger than your average school kid. Also with "only" 500 satellites they can't possibly cover the entirety of Earth all at the same time with that level of precision.

all you need is enough res to see a car to be able to pull it off in most cases.

 

 

i really hope this is stopped the potential for evil is quite large, specially in remote locations where "help" is long ways away

[Austinham]

21 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Exactly, and that is where people, and law enforcement are getting tangled up.  There are a lot of these photographers up and out testing these laws and the issue becomes one of Government overreach - when does the Cop get the ability to say you Modified this?  Pre illegal search and seizure?

State by State, heres Cali's who has been setting precedence, some things to read:

https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights

I believe its California Penal Code 148.G specifically. 

 

EDIT - my favorite tester to watch is San Juaquin Valley Transparency on YouTube.  When working with law enforcement we use him as the shining example of being tested vs knowing your shit in law enforcement.

148 is about obstructs of an public officer, part G is about taking photos or audio recordings of an officer.

[AlTech]

This is so wrong for so many different reasons.

 

There's no way this is legal under GDPR or Privacy By Design.

If this somehow does get implemented then I'll be happy to sue.

[Austinham]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

This is so wrong for so many different reasons.

 

There's no way this is legal under GDPR or Privacy By Design.

If this somehow does get implemented then I'll be happy to sue.

Let me know how that works out. And why not sue google for google earth wile you are at it?

[Tristerin]

4 minutes ago, Austinham said:

148 is about obstructs of an public officer, part G is about taking photos or audio recordings of an officer.

Which is what is used in Civil Law on this matter when someone has the cops called on them when photographing or videoing defense installations (from a public domain like a Sidewalk).  Same goes for Utilities - these are public domain and can be walked down.  Same with easements (to ensure on all roads you can pull over and legally open the door to your car without trespassing).  

[Austinham]

3 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Which is what is used in Civil Law on this matter when someone has the cops called on them when photographing or videoing defense installations (from a public domain like a Sidewalk).  Same goes for Utilities - these are public domain and can be walked down.  Same with easements (to ensure on all roads you can pull over and legally open the door to your car without trespassing).  

But the law says absolutely nothing about modifying a camera lens.

[Beerzerker]

40 minutes ago, Twilight said:

it doesn't say anywhere that the camera's are accurate enough to identify people. 

Unfortunately the tech is more than just good enough to do just that.
It's fact that back in the 60's a satelite photo could take a good enough pic with enough resolution that a viewer of the image could tell which way a person's hair was parted, that someone being on the ground out in public.

Here we are some 50 to 60 years later - You can't tell me the tech hasn't improved by now.

What makes this so bad is the fact even if a tech is developed for a simple, legitimate use it can be used later for other, nefarious purposes too and man himself has proven this truth time and time again.

To sum it up, it's not really the tech I don't trust, it's the ones in control of it.

BTW you suppose "Bill" would let you take a peek into his backyard anytime you'd like?
I don't think so.
Just another step closer to "Big Brother" making his presense actively known.

[Tristerin]

Just now, Austinham said:

But the law says absolutely nothing about modifying a camera lens.

Then you have to get down to case precedence - Im at work, I cant do all the research for you atm - this is a multi-state issue that has set precedence in many states - if I were YOU I would look up your specific state.  I am from Missouri so I know those laws a lot more specifically than I do Cali law (but that's whats being used to set precedence, 148.G on how to define legality of taking pictures of private property)

[Austinham]

13 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Then you have to get down to case precedence - Im at work, I cant do all the research for you atm - this is a multi-state issue that has set precedence in many states - if I were YOU I would look up your specific state.  I am from Missouri so I know those laws a lot more specifically than I do Cali law (but that's whats being used to set precedence, 148.G on how to define legality of taking pictures of private property)

I'm sorry but I have to call bull. 148 is about resisting arrest and obstructing justice,wile part G does speak about taking photos or audio recordings, it states nothing about trespassing or modification of camera lenses as you have been talking about nor can I find anything to back up your claims.

[Austinham]

delete

[Tristerin]

3 minutes ago, Austinham said:

I'm sorry but I have to call bull. 148 is about resisting arrest and obstructing justice,wile part G does speak about taking photos or audio recordings, it states nothing about trespassing or modification of camera lenses as you have been talking about nor can I find anything to back up your claims.

You can call bull, I don't care.  Just do your own research.  But I bet 100% you wont.  There is case-law, and whatnot already around about all of this.  Its out there, go...google-fu.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

EarthNow's details of what could be seen with their planned satellites suggest the satellite feed would have very good resolution when looking at Earth's terrain very close-up.

 

 

1 hour ago, MS-DOS Guy said:

I think it's really cool that we are expanding our eyes into space.

This is literally the opposite of looking into space, though: these "eyes" are very much focused on good ol' Earth...

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

This just sounds horrible. For all the good it can do it will do so far more worse things. Once anyone with bad intentions gets access to this be it a single person, a group, a government or whatnot things can easily spiral out of hand.

Most bad things that happen begin with good intentions.

 

As for all the people worried about privacy, when they're talking about monitoring fishing ships I don't think the resolution will be high enough to monitor people so I think we're all safe from having the NSA watch us growing weed in our sheds or having sex in the pool. At best you'll probably be about this big (-->o<--) on the image.

[theninja35]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

Taking this plan at face value and without more information, there are obvious issues and I've mentioned some of them in the OP.

 

But here's another very specific one: There are people who abduct children and even teenagers. Access to real-time video surveillance of when children leave their home or school, their habits of where they go, would make it easy for a kidnapper to target and abduct a child with very-low risk of being caught.

 

And the ability to know when people in a house and their neighbours are all away from home would be like an open invitation to thieves.

Well, if you want to go there, then why haven't you considered this?:

 

Those same cameras could be used to watch a crime happen in live time. Police could be on the scene much quicker and would immediately know what's happening and who the perpetrator is. Little Jimmy might be abducted for five minutes before the police can rescue him. Missing children would no longer be missing because they could be found and tracked.The ability to see someone break into a house as soon as they enter would allow police to know exactly what they're dealing with. It would be about as close to Minority Report as we could get, as far as police response goes, anyway.

 

Also, what makes you think that the resolution on these will be good enough to track individuals, anyway? They specifically mention "large whales" and "fishing boats," neither of which are small objects. And we don't even know how detailed that would be. As far as we know, the boat could be two pixels long.

 

If you read the FAQ: Simultaneously, the “Spot View Imagers” can zoom in and see specific locations in more detail. For privacy protection, the resolution of the imagers will not be capable of monitoring an individual person. 

 

Look, I disagree with a mass-surveillance system, especially one that's accessible by anyone, but there is a lot of skepticism in this thread. Please tell me no one here actually thinks Bill Gates owns the coronavirus...

[Curious Pineapple]

5 minutes ago, theninja35 said:

Look, I disagree with a mass-surveillance system, especially one that's accessible by anyone, but there is a lot of skepticism in this thread. Please tell me no one here actually thinks Bill Gates owns the coronavirus...

We've already got a "do your own research" so it's getting dangerously close!