Hacker News Reader

Comment by d_burfoot | Hacker News Reader

I wanted to believe that this was the jackboot of the government coming down on some completely innocent individual, but ...

> [the guy's site] features YouTube videos taken from drones flown over places around Area 51, satellite images of the base

Yeah, dude, you can't do that.

View on HN

If the problem is featuring YouTube videos, isn't the appropriate action raiding the creators or perhaps uploaders of the videos?

Anyway, if the problem is the videos are of places around Area 51, isn't the appropriate action to enlarge the restricted area to contain the places that are sensitive?

And satellite images don't have too many sources either. So either you shoot down the satellites or contract with the operators not to sell pictures over Area 51 (or perhaps the greater Area 51 area).

None of this requires raiding a site that meerly collects these existing resources.

my stepdad was an MP in Korea. He said they had lines painted around the b52's on base. If you crossed the line without authorization you got three warnings and then you're shot dead. Messing around the military installations isn't like speeding or running a light, you need to take that stuff seriously because they absolutely do. I wouldn't try to video a military base with a drone without getting permission first regardless of what I think the law says.

Why not?

You're really asking why it might be against the law to fly drones over military bases and take/distribute videos?

It's not clear from the wording if the drones were flown over Area 51 or if they were flown nearby.

There are laws against both.

https://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/drones.html

The irony is that the article on the very website of this person who was arrested lays out were you are not allowed to fly drones and urges people to stick to the allowed zones so that the airforce does not have reasons to expand them.

Judging by what was written on your link I assume he was very careful to stick to what was allowed.

"Hey, what's up?" - you

"Oh nothing,just walking around my apartment " - me

"You're outside your apartment walking the perimeter?" - you

"Wha..." - me

All of the airspace nearby Area 51 is restricted too. The nearest unrestricted airspace to Area 51 is 12 NM to the East. It's closer to 30NM if you also want to be near a public road.

The comment does not indicate the drones actually flew over Area 51 (or a military base) : "drones flown over places _around_ Area 51" (emphasis added)

Because it's illegal: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-restricts-drone-operations-...

https://faa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=...

Because, like large swaths of Southern Nevada, the airspace over Area 51 is restricted. Area 51 falls in restricted airspace R-4808N, and it's not legal to overfly it without permission.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/2022-02-16_O... (search for R-4808N)

https://skyvector.com/?ll=37.22343947130071,-115.74522399506...

Why would you form an opinion then gather information about what he did?

We don't always have detailed evidence, so its useful to be able to make predictions with less evidence. When we have more evidence, we can verify the accuracy of our predictions in order to make better predictions in the future. Admitting "I was wrong this time" is the first step in being less wrong next time.

"I wanted to believe that this was the jackboot of the government coming down on some completely innocent individual, but ..."

Why did you want to believe the government was doing something wrong?

In your zealousness to give someone I hard time for not doing appropriate diligence, I do believe you have replied to the wrong person.

You're right, I should have been more careful and I get the irony. The comment sounded like it was a defense by the parent and I made an assumption.

However I don't consider it giving someone a hard time. I think of it as calling out people who decrease the quality of the conversation. You could throw that accusation back at me for my mistake but it is just that, a mistake.

If he got busted for flying drones over military bases, then I have no sympathy. If he was only republishing images captured by somebody else who did that and already published them, then he did nothing wrong.

It's not clear to me which of these happened.

Plus, he said he the drones were flying over places "near" the base. If the airspace he was flying in was not restricted, then publishing the images should be legal, though I wouldn't be surprised if that's not actually true.

Sweet, when is Google getting raided? Also note it says "drones flown over places around Area 51" which likely means the publicly accessible areas outside of the base.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Groom+Lake,+Nevada/@37.275...

This comment makes no sense, Google does not own and operate satellites.

I'm pretty sure the random guy operating a website about Area 51 doesn't own or operate any satellites either, what's your point?

I believe he’s incorrectly inferring that google passes through confidential information through its mapping program, which is false as it’s believed fairly widely (and possibly admitted) some parts of their global coverage are omitted or altered. Either way, google mapping “everything” versus one dude driving to this place, launching his drone, then taking photographs of one specific target, imho isn’t the same thing.

>> > [the guy's site] features YouTube videos taken from drones flown over places around Area 51, satellite images of the base

this is the part that would make google culpable in both the "youtube" part and the "satellite imagery" part, regardless of who took the photos.

If i find a youtube video and link/embed/whatever it to my website, and the government is mad about that, how is this my problem?

Put another way, if i take a satellite image of my neighbors house, print it, and put up flyers around my neighborhood...

Didn't he make the youtube videos?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com