US lifts restrictions on more detailed satellite images

I don&#x27;t like this. What is the business of a government in regulating the resolution of whatever form of imagery???<p>If it can be seen from the sky, or from the street, it&#x27;s public. Planes, satellites, drones, whatever - you should be free to take pics and sell them if you want.<p>Fortunately, digital camera didn&#x27;t exist where such kind of laws had been passed, or there would have been similar stupid restrictions (imagine google streetview with n-times 640x480 pics crafted together, or worse - a law restricting the resolution of the reconstructed google streetview you can view on your screen!)

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

For anyone concerned about privacy, higher resolution imagery already exists and is used heavily in industry. See <a href="http://www.pictometry.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pictometry.com</a>. They use airplanes.

I thought that some of the higher-res photos from google earth and competitors were taken by plane, rather than satellite. I wonder how&#x2F;if the new restrictions apply to lower-flying photography?

I don&#x27;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&#x27;t a breach of privacy.)