Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#21

Post by natosaichek »

pingou wrote: post #17

Does "images that showed features as small as 31cm" means 1 pixel = average color of 31x31cm or is it more complicated?

That is roughly correct. There is typically a bayer-mask filter on a grayscale sensor, so any given pixel is actually only either blue, red or green, but then a mixing algorithm is applied and you get the full resolution with the appropriate mixing. Of course, there are a variety of filters and a variety of algorithms, so the exact mix will vary across different technologies, but roughly speaking, yes.

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#22

Post by natosaichek »

ser_ocelot wrote: post #11
nitrogen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to drones and satellites, privacy no longer exists in private yards, even those with high fences lined with trees. Thanks to infrared photography, structure-penetrating radar, cell phones, etc., privacy no longer exists indoors either. This is not right.

Is there a suitable material for a lightweight "roof" you could put over your property that would block aerial photography but still allow sunlight and rain to penetrate? One could even make it shielded against electromagnetic frequencies. No more drones hacking your wifi!

I think something like this would be cool: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/01/camouflage-cali-hiding-air-...

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#24

Post by toomuchtodo »

trebor wrote: post #16
rwmj wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you worry about people flying planes over your house, looking over your fence, etc?

What worries me more is what kind of corporate espionage these satellite images will be put to use for. They've been able to see the car(s) in a driveway for awhile now. But imagine: now they can pay to see what the most popular cars are in a geographical region; they can look at your deck and determine furniture brands; they can see you sunbathing; they can see what you play with, etc. No longer is it just "buying h…

Write an app to calculate orbital elements and pop up an alert: "Imaging object arriving over horizon, take action"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements

http://www.heavens-above.com/

Other countries have done this for years, and cover their equipment with camo cover when opposing country assets are overhead. This is why the Air Force/Boeing X-37B is such a big deal; its an asset that can shift orbits to counterattack known orbit information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/X_37B_Gets_Stranger_999.ht...

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#25

Post by dublinben »

shiven wrote: post #12
trebor wrote: post #2

I don't like this. You can already see a lot of detail on these satellite photos. This is a huge breach of privacy. (Not that a 50cm lower limit isn't a breach of privacy.)

For all the browbeating about erosion of privacy, I have yet to come across practical, consumer-proof solutions to anything that protects against said loss of privacy. Digital, software, hardware anything? The only solutions out there are range from impractical to ludicrous. Go hoodies, go Tor, go klutzy-PGP, go burkas!! /sigh

If you're worried about satellites and black helicopters, I think you've already left the realm of practicality. You might as well toss up the camo netting and don your tinfoil hat.

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#26

Post by grkvlt »

ser_ocelot wrote: post #11
nitrogen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to drones and satellites, privacy no longer exists in private yards, even those with high fences lined with trees. Thanks to infrared photography, structure-penetrating radar, cell phones, etc., privacy no longer exists indoors either. This is not right.

Is there a suitable material for a lightweight "roof" you could put over your property that would block aerial photography but still allow sunlight and rain to penetrate? One could even make it shielded against electromagnetic frequencies. No more drones hacking your wifi!

Build your property (partially) underground? Like this http://www.trendir.com/house-design/grass-roofed-home-built-... or similar. You'd need to deal with waste heat somehow for the infrared signature not to look suspicious. And ground-penetrating RADAR would pick you up as well, I expect.

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#27

Post by dublinben »

crusso wrote: post #14
dublinben wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is not right. This is reality though. Our expectations of privacy must adjust to changes in technology.

What is allowed with technology does not dictate what is right or even legal.

When has the law ever been able to prevent the use of technology?

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#28

Post by [deleted] »

bluman wrote: post #18
trebor wrote: post #2

I don't like this. You can already see a lot of detail on these satellite photos. This is a huge breach of privacy. (Not that a 50cm lower limit isn't a breach of privacy.)

Effectively the resolution of commercial satellite imagery will be changing from 50cm to 40cm and then 25cm later this summer when WorldView-3 is online. This is vastly less commercial aerial photography which has been around 15cm for the last decade and increasingly around 7cm at affordable costs. I don't believe that satellite imagery will be getting much better due to quantum diffraction. I'm not saying that this…

[deleted]

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#29

Post by mikecb »

[deleted] wrote: post #28
bluman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Effectively the resolution of commercial satellite imagery will be changing from 50cm to 40cm and then 25cm later this summer when WorldView-3 is online. This is vastly less commercial aerial photography which has been around 15cm for the last decade and increasingly around 7cm at affordable costs. I don't believe that satellite imagery will be getting much better due to quantum diffraction. I'm not saying that this…

[deleted]

It was just relaxed. But Digital Globe doesn't yet have a bird in the air capable of it. In the fall they will, and it will be available to everyone.

Re: US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

#30

Post by snarfy »

guylhem wrote: post #6

I don't like this. What is the business of a government in regulating the resolution of whatever form of imagery??? If it can be seen from the sky, or from the street, it's public. Planes, satellites, drones, whatever - you should be free to take pics and sell them if you want. Fortunately, digital camera didn't exist where such kind of laws had been passed, or there would have been similar stupid restrictions (imagi…

So if I point a FLIR camera at your house and show every human in it and broadcast it on the internet, that should be public too? I can see it from the street, after all.

The resolution limit is due to privacy concerns, the same as with the FLIR cameras.

Post reply on HN