(no subject)
I first started hearing about the concerns of aerial imagery a few years ago when celebs living in Malibu, California complained about privacy. It posed an interesting ethical dilemma back then partly because if the ruling went the way of the celeb(s), it would certainley limit the freedom of the average person. A person taking a photo from the sky could then be potentially liable for breach of privacy or some other similar issue.
Satellite imagery then brings up similar concern. The increasingly clarity of such technology provides with with such a clear view that we can zoom in upon our houses and so on. In the above picture is a snapshop of sydney airport, where you can even see the planes ‘docked’ or whatever the terminology is. At the current state of the technology, its highly unlikely that it can be used for any negative means, but as technology further develops in the future will serious privacy issues start to arise? I googled a bit for other thoughts on this issue and came across this post:http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/06/imagery_and_pri.html which brings up certain good points. I agree with the Government scrubbing stuff, there are some things that should not be revealed for some means or another – usually national security risks/reasons. But what role does the individual play in their say over what is or is not displayed? Currently one has little say in whether their house or their car shows up in imagery. It is next to impossible (not to mention unfeasible) to let the public have a say in whether they want their house to be displayed or not. But the question that rises is ethically, should we? Laws consider taking pictures of people without their knowledge illegal. As are taking pictures of certain buildings of ‘significant interest’. Is a satellite taking a photo of your property or perhaps you in your backyard a invasion of your privacy? And as seen in the image I have posted with this, when is to much detail to much?