Except that's not what happens. Authors, movie prop designers and game developers have all been asked a lot of questions when their stuff rings a little too true. They don't get in trouble (although the FBI asking questions is some amount of trouble). But the FBI is trying to find who leaked stuff to them, and if they just had good imaginations and/or the government published too much stuff, it's not their fault.

It seems pretty clear-cut to me. "Guessing right" cannot be espionage, because you didn't gather any new information, just discussed existing publicly available information. Similarly, "publicly discussing reality" cannot be espionage unless the "reality" you're discussing includes information you obtained illicitly (e.g. by flying drones near government facilities and taking pictures of them in a concerted effort to obtain said information), or as a result of you having a security clearance.

What if you fly a drone over a top secret base with a no fly zone over it?

He doesn't have to trespass to break the law -- taking pictures from the outside is enough.

18 U.S. Code § 795(a) )Photographing and sketching defense installations): Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.

I'm not sure whether protected airspace would count as an installation, but the military base itself certainly would. Per the article,

>> Dreamland Resort, at dreamlandresort.com, started by Arnu in 1999, features YouTube videos taken from drones flown over places around Area 51, satellite images of the base, a discussion forum with posts on the topic, articles on test flights, “black projects” and UFOs, and what it says are photos of new vehicles such as the so-called “super secret” Northrop Grumman RQ-180 unmanned stealth aircraft shown flying in 2021.

Which leaves open also the possibility that they are investigating someone else; eg, someone with clearance getting an ego boost by posting info on the forums, which isn't unprecedented.

> features YouTube videos taken from drones flown over places around Area 51

These activities could be

I don't know the laws on this, but from a common sense point of view such activities could be espionage if done as part of an espionage mission but could also not be espionage is done for other purposes. For instance if you happen to record which naval ships are in a harbor, that's not espionage. If on the other hand you are sending that film to German intelligence in exchange for your income as a German spy the act of taking that film is probably espionage.

IANAL, but I think distributing classified information, even if you did not get it illegally, is still a crime. So if a secret thing flies over your house you are probably OK taking its picture, but if you share it with the world the feds may come for you.

Maybe seeing a secret government aircraft from private property makes that property into government property for as long as it takes to render the aircraft unseen.

> If information could be classified, then you'd need a public register of classified topics, so that researchers would know what to avoid researching.

Two points: First, the general public has no duty to protect almost all classified data. If you've never had a clearance and signed the NDA, you can take TS/SCI material you found on the ground and publish it (you'd want to be real careful about not lending support to terrorists etc., because the gendarmes would likely be looking for anything to nail you on).

Second, we do have a public register of no-no topics (more accurately, topics you have an affirmative duty to protect even without a security clearance): the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1981.

I expect this has caught the attention of the ACLU.

Issues in this realm are typically not about the information posted, but how it was obtained.

I expect if it is drones flying over, that this will be cut and dry.

That’s a huge no no for any military installation, much less one that has all the aliens. I mean “research planes”.

"National security" is a spell with the power to negate the Constitution's effect.

Which posting it publicly on the internet certainly does.

Double nope. Both collecting sensitive information and/or transferring sensitive information to a foreign nation are espionage. Further, the information need not be classified, the entity the information is transferred to need not be foreign, and foreign nations need not be adversaries. You hand over a document from the US military to a US newspaper - espionage. You draw a sketch in a notebook of a military base - espionage. Listening in on government frequencies to get information for a domestic terrorist group - espionage. A sketchy dude gives you a briefcase and tells you to hand it to another sketchy dude - potentially espionage.

Mishandling of classified documents you had clearance to see, or aiding a foreign adversary are related crimes.