| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Red_Devil35
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 2886
Location: Practically South Dakota!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5594
Location: north of Duluth
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
_________________
Hmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonas
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 672
Location: Chaska, MN
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeoPierce
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 1657
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5594
Location: north of Duluth
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GeoPierce wrote: |
| I can understand why they would want to do it but could care less if it happens. |
My only objection to it would be on the principal of it. If you do this, where does it end?
_________________
Hmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, actually the headline sounds like hype to me. The bill specifically names "school or place of worship, or a government or medical building or facility" as places to blur, and those because of security concerns.
Recently, Google partnered with others to put up a satellite that has the capability of producing photographs with twice the resolution that the government now allows them to publish.
Here's an article about it...
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2008/09/new-satellite-to-give-google-maps-unprecedented-resolution.ars
And some sample images showing the resolution the new technology can yield and still be in DoD compiance:
http://www.geoeye.com/CorpSite/gallery/Default.aspx
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bunganator
Geocacher
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 276
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| knowschad wrote: |
| The bill specifically names "school or place of worship, or a government or medical building or facility" as places to blur, and those because of security concerns. |
Good thing there aren't a lot of caches near those... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speedysk1
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 1991
Location: Mound MN
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
What's interesting is private satellite imagery has been around for years and the government even releases sat photos. Sounds like a red herring to me. It's like the old adage, if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. Same thing here, except in this case it would be satellite photos. There's lots of private satellites that take photos.
_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcticabn
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 1846
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The bill has nothing to do with the owner of the satellite or the producer of the images. It has to do with the internet service provider that makes the images available.
The bill also covers street level images. So every new media and whether print or electronic that operates a web site is also at risk here. If a news story is about students at a school they can not publish a picture of the school building according to this law.
I think that the key legal phrase here is : provide aerial or satellite
photographs or imagery of a building or facility in this state that
is identified on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school or
place of worship, or a government or medical building or facility,
unless those photographs or images have been blurred.
Since Google Earth as the operator does not "Identify" the building or such how are they held libel (I know its California). The satellite images themselves do not identify the specific buildings by identy. Google as a company does not lable the images identifying what the buildings are.
Now wikiMapia on the other hand does allow the user community to label structures specifically identifying the buildings.
I don't think it stands a chance of passing. If it did, Google and the other service providers would just restrict CA IPs from accessing the data. There is no way to identify every specified building on a imagy and just blur them. Google would just shut it down for use in California.
| Code: |
BILL NUMBER: AB 255 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Anderson
FEBRUARY 11, 2009
An act to add Chapter 22.3 (commencing with Section 22585) to
Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to Internet
security.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 255, as introduced, Anderson. Internet security: virtual globe
technology.
Existing law requires the operator of a commercial Internet Web
site or online service that collects personally identifiable
information through the Internet about individual consumers residing
in California who use or visit its commercial Internet Web site or
online service to post its privacy policy on its Internet Web site or
make that policy available, as specified.
This bill would prohibit an operator, as defined, of a commercial
Internet Web site or online service that makes a virtual globe
browser available to members of the public from providing aerial or
satellite photographs or imagery of places in this state that have
been identified on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school,
place of worship, or government or medical building or facility
unless those photographs or images have been blurred. The bill would
also prohibit that operator from providing street view photographs or
imagery of those buildings and facilities. An operator that violates
these provisions would be guilty of a crime and subject to a fine of
not less than $250,000 for each day the operator is in violation of
these provisions. In addition, an operator who is an executive
officer or member of a board of directors who knowingly violates
these provisions would also be subject to imprisonment in the state
prison for one, 2, or 3 years. Because the bill would create new
crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 22.3 (commencing with Section 22585) is added
to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:
CHAPTER 22.3. INTERNET SECURITY
22585. (a) An operator of a commercial Internet Web site or
online service that makes a virtual globe browser available to
members of the public shall not provide aerial or satellite
photographs or imagery of a building or facility in this state that
is identified on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school or
place of worship, or a government or medical building or facility,
unless those photographs or images have been blurred.
(b) An operator of a commercial Internet Web site or online
service that makes a virtual globe browser available to members of
the public shall not provide street view photographs or images of the
buildings and facilities described in subdivision (a).
(c) (1) An operator of a commercial Internet Web site or online
service that violates this section is guilty of a crime and shall be
subject to a fine of not less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars
($250,000) for each day in violation of this section.
(2) An operator who is a natural person and who is found to have
knowingly violated this section shall be subject to one, two, or
three years in prison, in addition to the fine set forth in paragraph
(1).
(d) For purposes of this section, an "operator" includes a
corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited
liability company, association, joint venture, or any other legal or
commercial entity, or a natural person who is an executive officer or
member of the board of directors of one of those entities. An
operator does not include a governmental entity.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
|
_________________
Airborne All the Way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speedysk1
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 1991
Location: Mound MN
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your right about it doesn't specify the type of satellite, my point was that this data has been available for many years and now these legislators think it's a problem. Are they going to shutdown the government sites that distribute the satellite data too?
I agree with you though, Google and the like will probably just block users from CA from viewing the data period. It's a bit Draconian, but it's the only way to get around the issue short of closing their businesses down.
But hey, it's California, what do you expect from them? 
_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonas
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 672
Location: Chaska, MN
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The ironic thing here is that it might actually be easier for law enforcement to find potential suspects of crime if the service remains legally available as opposed to going underground.
I would be more inclined to support an act that forced Internet mapping companies to release records of users accessing maps of a location of a crime in the weeks prior to the crime.
-Jonas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5594
Location: north of Duluth
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arcticabn wrote: |
| The bill also covers street level images. So every new media and whether print or electronic that operates a web site is also at risk here. If a news story is about students at a school they can not publish a picture of the school building according to this law. |
It would be nearly impossible to enforce. With the bill I don't believe I'd be able to post a picture of me standing in front of the capitol building in California on Flickr. Again, where does it end?
| Jonas wrote: |
| I would be more inclined to support an act that forced Internet mapping companies to release records of users accessing maps of a location of a crime in the weeks prior to the crime. |
I'd rather not have the government snooping on where I browse and what I look at.
_________________
Hmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Hipster
Geocacher
Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 259
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: Re: Satellite mapping too detailed? |
|
|
| Jonas wrote: |
snip ... I wonder if this building from his district had anything to do with his idea for the bill? ... snip
-Jonas |
Now that was funny! LOL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
