I think this just means that, if a particular satellite image reveals important military information, the government is allowed to keep it secret -- instead of being REQUIRED BY LAW to make it public, i.e., reveal it to enemies.
I really doubt that the typical "map showing my house" or "aerial view of my community" is in any jeopardy.
It's like the GPS satellites, I guess: a high-grade signal for navy ships and infantry teams -- with a degraded signal for commuters and backpackers.
Ed Poor A former soldier
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I think this just means that, if a particular satellite image reveals important military information, the government is allowed to keep it secret -- instead of being REQUIRED BY LAW to make it public, i.e., reveal it to enemies.
Not entirely. The FOIA already includes explicit exemptions for classified material and material that could impact national security, which is why documents released under the FOIA often have large sections blacked out. What this law would do is allow the government to refuse to release _unclassified_ satellite images that _do not impact national security_. I'm not really sure what the justification for that is.
-Mark
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:00:12 UTC, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I think this just means that, if a particular satellite image reveals important military information, the government is allowed to keep it secret -- instead of being REQUIRED BY LAW to make it public, i.e., reveal it to enemies.
I really doubt that the typical "map showing my house" or "aerial view of my community" is in any jeopardy.
Ah, well, that's because you conservatives have complete trust in the Government to behave decently and reasonably on its own, without oversight by the citizens.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Seriously, none of this (including the advocacy site cited) tells us much about the sort of unclassified stuff that needs to be suppressed, or how determinations will be made, or what motivations a government agency might have for doing things not entirely jusitifiable by the common weal, or what appeal there might be from policies unfavorable to the good of the citiznes, if such motivations should exist in reality. The only information we have at the moment is that _one_ form of redress against possible ill-considered government policy is to be repealed, presumably for good national-security reasons. Obviously, the pursuit of such questions belongs somewhere other than here.
Dan Drake wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:00:12 UTC, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I think this just means that, if a particular satellite image reveals important military information, the government is allowed to keep it secret -- instead of being REQUIRED BY LAW to make it public, i.e., reveal it to enemies.
I really doubt that the typical "map showing my house" or "aerial view of my community" is in any jeopardy.
Ah, well, that's because you conservatives have complete trust in the Government to behave decently and reasonably on its own, without oversight by the citizens.
:-)
One thing I noticed is that the article mentions images created by private companies and then bought for use by the government. It occurs to me that people might have been using FOIA as an endrun to avoid paying the companies for their images - find out that the government happens to be one of their customers, demand copies from the government under FOIA, and then use the images for free "because it's from the government".
I'm no conservative, but if a company has put up their own satellite and network, I think they're as deserving of making a profit from it as the portrait photographer down the street.
Stan
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:03:15 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
One thing I noticed is that the article mentions images created by private companies and then bought for use by the government. It occurs to me that people might have been using FOIA as an endrun to avoid paying the companies for their images - find out that the government happens to be one of their customers, demand copies from the government under FOIA, and then use the images for free "because it's from the government".
Ah, but wouldn't this still breach the original company's copyright? Oh, hang on, I think I misread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government - but it doesn't really say that that *does* include works acquired from other organisations...
Rowan Collins wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:03:15 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
One thing I noticed is that the article mentions images created by private companies and then bought for use by the government. It occurs to me that people might have been using FOIA as an endrun to avoid paying the companies for their images - find out that the government happens to be one of their customers, demand copies from the government under FOIA, and then use the images for free "because it's from the government".
Ah, but wouldn't this still breach the original company's copyright?
Seems so to me, but FOIA itself probably muddies the waters - makes it a matter of the "public interest" or whatever. If it's ABC doing the stealing, probably hard for a small imaging company to stop them. This could all just be bought-and-paid-for legislation too, rationality is just one of the many options in DC. :-)
In any case, it doesn't matter to WP, because we don't want anything to do with improperly-licensed images anyway.
Stan
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:03:15 UTC, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
One thing I noticed is that the article mentions images created by private companies and then bought for use by the government. It occurs to me that people might have been using FOIA as an endrun to avoid paying the companies for their images - find out that the government happens to be one of their customers, demand copies from the government under FOIA, and then use the images for free "because it's from the government".
Very interesting point, and that's probably what's involved. Now if someone can teacht he government to say what it (supp0osedly) means on those occasions when it's *not* making a power grab, things will really be nice.
I'm no conservative, but if a company has put up their own satellite and network, I think they're as deserving of making a profit from it as the portrait photographer down the street.
Yes, people have rights even when organized into corportations. (Almost said that corporations have rights--a serious slip of the keyboard!)
Dan Drake wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
I'm no conservative, but if a company has put up their own satellite and network, I think they're as deserving of making a profit from it as the portrait photographer down the street.
Yes, people have rights even when organized into corportations. (Almost said that corporations have rights--a serious slip of the keyboard!)
Legally a corporation IS a person, and does have rights.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Legally a corporation IS a person, and does have rights.
As much as I hate to add to off-topic channel noise, I can't help but point out that a corporation is a legal entity, not a person. Corporations can own property, form contracts and be sued for negligence. But they can't vote, you can't assault them or murder them. They don't have a right to bear arms, or a right to free speech. Just a minor point of terminology, obviously corporations do have rights to creative works made by their employees.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Legally a corporation IS a person, and does have rights.
As much as I hate to add to off-topic channel noise, I can't help but point out that a corporation is a legal entity, not a person. Corporations can own property, form contracts and be sued for negligence. But they can't vote, you can't assault them or murder them. They don't have a right to bear arms, or a right to free speech. Just a minor point of terminology, obviously corporations do have rights to creative works made by their employees.
I hope that the following will clear things up. A person may be a natural person or an artificial person.
From http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=358&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.
From
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dictionary/dictionary_listing.cfm/Term/288F640...
A legal structure authorized by state law that allows a business to organize as a separate legal entity from its owners. A nonprofit is often referred to as an "artificial legal person," meaning that, like an individual, it can enter into contracts, sue and be sued and do the many other things necessary to carry on a business.
From http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-p.aspx
Person An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-c.aspx#corporation or associations.
From Section 36 of the Interpretation Act (Queensland)
“person” includes an individual and a corporation.
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:35:40 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
...
Yes, people have rights even when organized into corportations. (Almost said that corporations have rights--a serious slip of the keyboard!)
Legally a corporation IS a person, and does have rights.
Indeed, it was a seeming endorsement of that doctrine -- a wholly unwarrranted bit of judicial legslation by an activist judge, to use the conservatives' terminology where it applies -- that I needed to avoid.
Apologies for the OT digression.
Dont confuse US Law with the rest of the world.
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:35:40 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
...
Yes, people have rights even when organized into corportations. (Almost said that corporations have rights--a serious slip of the keyboard!)
Legally a corporation IS a person, and does have rights.
Indeed, it was a seeming endorsement of that doctrine -- a wholly unwarrranted bit of judicial legslation by an activist judge, to use the conservatives' terminology where it applies -- that I needed to avoid.
Apologies for the OT digression.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:21:34 UTC, Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com wrote:
Dont confuse US Law with the rest of the world.
Wouldn't think of it. Why would I want to comment on the law in places where I don't know the legal background? Hey, if somebody did know the background of this doctrine in a variety of legal systems, it would make a useful Wikipedia article. Any takers?
[With no apologies for now continuing the OT subthread that I had hoped to be done with]